Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Vocational Training

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to establish an inquiry into the effectiveness of vocational training for young people; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The Government made clear in the recent White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s" that YTS has succeeded in training substantial numbers of young people for jobs. To ensure its continued effectiveness, the scope and role of the scheme will be kept under review as too will the developing inner-city compacts and the extension of the technical and vocational educational initiative to all secondary schools and colleges in Great Britain.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply but I could not help noticing an element of complacency in it. Does the Secretary of State accept that Britain continues to lag behind our main competitors in the provision of adequate vocational training for young people and that that is likely further to undermine Britain's competitiveness, especially after 1992? What further effective steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to ensure a better and adequate vocational training for young people?

Mr. Fowler: We are taking a whole series of steps to seek to improve training for young people, unemployed people and people at work. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of that. The fact that YTS has been successful can be established from the figures in the hon. Gentleman's own city of Leicester. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that in the past two years in Leicester an average of 86 per cent. of people on YTS have gone into jobs, further education or training.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State accept that what we really need in the provision of training for young people is a far more co-ordinated approach between schools, technical colleges, the careers service in

particular and the employment and training agencies? How does the Secretary of State see that approach developing further?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need the greatest degree of co-operation and co-ordination that we can get. We have just begun the compact initiatives in inner cities, which are exactly in line with what the hon. Gentleman wants—co-operation between industry on the one side and schools on the other. I am glad to say that all the signs are that although they were begun only a few months ago they are already developing into what I believe will be an outstanding success.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is it not the case that more than three quarters of YTS leavers go into jobs or further training? How does my right hon. Friend see those prospects improving or shaping in subsequent months?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right—about 76 per cent. of YTS leavers go into jobs, further training or education, and 80 per cent. of the leavers who were asked afterwards whether they were happy with their training said that it was worth while. In the next few years opportunities for young people will undoubtedly increase. Indeed, the opportunities and outlook for young people in this country have scarcely ever been better.

Mr. Meacher: But have not the Government created skill shortages by running down skills training in the past 10 years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year craft and technician qualifications in chemical and electrical engineering were down to only 30,000, which is less than a third of the number in France and less than a quarter of the number in Germany? Is he further aware that in the service sector the number of people gaining qualifications in retailing in this country is now less than one ninth of the number in France? Against that background, is it not perfectly clear that there is not a skills gap but a skills chasm, and that since this Government have been in office it has been widening?

Mr. Fowler: Typically, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in virtually everything that he says. In fact, there are now 428,000 people in training under YTS—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the figures, he will find out. There are now 428,000 people in training under YTS. That is a greater number of young people in training than ever before.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the German experience, which I believe has a great deal to teach this country. That is why, for the purposes of improving training we have put forward the proposal to have training and enterprise councils locally based, industry-run and employer-led. Training has already improved, but it will improve substantially more.

Tourism

Mr. Tracey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution the tourism industry made to United Kingdom invisible earnings in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Estimates published last week show that overseas residents spent more than £5·4 billion in the first 10 months of 1988.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has provided excellent figures, but how do they compare with other factors in the invisible earnings sector of our economy? Will he consult our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on how much better they could be if London's traffic and transport were sorted out?

Mr. Lee: I take the point that my hon. Friend has made about London traffic and transport. That is an issue that we discuss with transport colleagues in the tourism ministerial co-ordinating group.
In the invisible earnings sector, overseas earnings from tourism amount to about 40 per cent. of the size of the separate financial services sector. In the first nine months of 1988, other overseas earnings were slightly larger than exports of road vehicles and aircraft combined.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that our cathedrals and cathedral cities have a central role to play in the development of the tourist industry? Will he speak to his ministerial colleagues to see whether there are ways in which the Government could take a positive role in helping the deans and chapters?

Mr. Lee: I know of the continuing interest that my hon. Friend takes in cathedrals. Of course, our cathedrals and churches are major national tourism assets. Indeed, I recently visited Winchester cathedral and saw what has been achieved there and its potential. Once again I make the point that that is just the sort of issue that I can consider with ministerial colleagues in our tourism ministerial co-ordinating group.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister will agree that, despite terrorism, tourism in Northern Ireland is doing reasonably well, but will he use his influence and ask tourist agencies to persuade people perhaps, to extend their visit to England and visit Northern Ireland, too?

Mr. Lee: That is an interesting point. I shall put that proposition forward to my ministerial colleague in charge of tourism in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), to see if something can be worked out.

National Training Task Force

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on his proposal to create a national training task force contained in the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s", and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: I have received a number of representations on the proposal to create a national training task force. This has now been appointed and I am delighted that leading figures in industry and commerce, education, training, voluntary bodies and trade unions have agreed to serve on it.

Mr. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a most important body which will have responsibility for steering training in the future? Will he tell the House whom he has appointed to serve on the national training task force, or at least give us one or two names of those appointed, and how he envisages them carrying out their role?

Mr. Fowler: I will not set out all the people who are on the national training task force, but suffice it to say that they include the chief executive of IBM UK, the chairmen of the Scottish Development Agency, Tarmac plc, HTV Limited, and National Freight Consortium plc, and the president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, whom I am sure the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will recognise. The fact that such leading figures are taking part shows the importance that industry generally and the leaders of industry are placing on training.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister have any plans to do anything about training for the growing army of homeworkers, which is an emerging subculture in our sweatshop economy? What training plans does he have for people currently earning 24p per hour as a result of the Government's policies? What instructions has he given to the task force to help those people?

Mr. Fowler: I do not believe that those people come under the remit of the task force. I shall, however, consider any evidence that the hon. Lady wishes to send to me. The whole purpose of the task force is to get the training and enterprise councils established to encourage training by employers throughout the country.

YTS

Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees have been on the YTS since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): Since its introduction in April 1983, 2,320,000 young people have taken part in YTS, which shows that its value is recognised by young people and by employers.

Mr. Wood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Stevenage the success of the YTS is widely recognised? Will he tell me more about how many people have achieved jobs, further training or, alternatively, started full-time education compared with the position in Stevenage?

Mr. Cope: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said just now that 76 per cent. of the country's YTS leavers go into jobs or further education. That percentage is exactly the same in Stevenage, although, in Stevenage a slightly higher proportion of YTS leavers go into jobs and a slightly lower proportion into further education.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that in the past eight years there have been 50 fatalities in YTS? I welcome the offer that the Minister made on Wednesday night concerning Derek Cain. Following his tragic death in 1982 on a youth opportunities programme in Sheffield, his father was offered £52 compensation, but three days before Christmas the High Court overturned that decision and awarded £20,000 compensation and costs of up to £100,000 against Plumb's, the Sheffield firm.
Will the Minister now give me, the House and the other 49 families who have suffered bereavements, a categorical assurance that when his Department considers the written judgment of 22 December in that case it will, where necessary, advise the other 49 families of the possibilities of similar legal redress for the deaths of their sons and daughters?

Mr. Cope: Since 1983, when YTS started, there have been 34 fatalities. Incidentally, 13 were road traffic accidents—such accidents do not count in the normal health and safety statistics, but we recognise them when they occur on YTS. Any accident, whether it occurs at the workplace or on the road, is to be deeply deplored. We must do what we can to avoid them.
When we were discussing the Cain case the other night I told the hon. Gentleman and the House that when we get the written judgment we shall certainly review the case carefully with two things in mind. The first is to see whether there are any lessons to be learnt from the health and safety point of view. We applied quite a lot of lessons immediately after the Cain case and in the early stages of YTS. In fact, the entire health and safety regime of YTS is quite different from what it was under the youth opportunities programme in 1982 when Derek Cain was tragically killed. We shall also consider the individual cases to see if we can learn anything with regard to compensation, as mentioned by the hon.Gentleman, or in other ways. In the judgment the judge said that in his view the case was not a precedent, but we shall study each case carefully.

Mr. Dicken: Dow my right hon. Friend accept that youth unemployment among the under-25s has fallen by 37 per cent. in the year to October? That is well below the European average. Does he also accept that about three quarters of those on YTS secured jobs at the end of their training and that there are 130,000 vacancies on YTS? Does that not sing the praises of the Conservative Government and their training schemes?

Mr. Cope: It does indeed. As a matter of fact there are 129,000 places available on YTS.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister recognise that the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Conventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will do little to lessen many people's fears about the safety record of YTS? Will the Minister give a much clearer indication of the criteria that will be used when he comes to judge cases for possible compensation?

Mr. Cope: They will have to be the legal criteria; there are no others that I can responsibly use.

Tourism

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas tourists visited Britain in 1988; how much they spent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: Figures are not yet available for the whole of 1988. Provisional estimates show that in the first 10 months of 1988 there were 13·8 million visits to Great Britain by overseas residents. During that period overseas residents spent some £5·4 billion on goods and services in Great Britain.

Mr. Bevan: American tourism is a major contributor to invisible earnings and the balance of payments. What effect does my hon. Friend think the unfortunate bombing of the Boeing 747 flight 103 at Lockerbie will have on it, and how does he assess the effect it will have on dollar earnings?

Mr. Lee: American visitors to this country are extremely important, but in normal years for every one American who comes here to visit about four visitors come from other countries. The air disaster at Lockerbie is bound to create a degree of apprehension, so the industry will have to work harder at selling itself in the United States. I must make the point, however, that the current fatality rate for United Kingdom fixed-wing transport aircraft, including the sad M1 tragedy, is one fatality per 3·4 billion passenger kilometres flown.

Mr. Cryer: Did the Minister see the delegation from the Settle-Carlisle area representing small businesses, whose members pointed out that if the Settle-Carlisle railway closes people will not be able to travel to cities such as Bradford and Carlisle, which will suffer a loss of turnover? They also said that in the Settle-Carlisle hinterland served by the railway hundreds of jobs in small businesses will be lost. In view of those representations from the small business sector, will the Minister tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the railway line should be kept open on the basis of keeping jobs?

Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I know the Settle-Carlisle area well. With my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Transport I attended a presentation last week by the English tourist board and the consultants on the work that they have done. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the future of the Settle-Carlisle line at this moment.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the hon. Member representing the premier tourist area of Wales, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that what overseas visitors most want is all-weather, all-year, high quality accommodation and facilities? Will he direct his Department's policy to that end?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a tremendous amount of investment in the industry at present—about £2 billion worth of new construction is under way, and a goodly proportion of that is increasingly geared to all-weather leisure facilities.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister realise that about 20,000 men, women and children from the Indian subcontinent, Nigeria and Ghana are being denied the opportunity to visit the United Kingdom because they have been refused visitor visas? Will he conduct an urgent inquiry into the often bizarre reasons why those people are denied visas, in the hope that many more overseas visitors from those countries will be able to make the visits that they urgently want to undertake in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently experienced parliamentarian to know that that question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that more overseas tourists would come here if our tourist information centres were better located? In particular, will he examine the situation in the biggest gateway into Britain, Dover, where the only way to find a tourist information centre is to travel on the road out of Britain?

Mr. Lee: No Question Time would be complete without my hon. Friend raising the subject of tourist information centres. I know how dear this subject is to him and how


important he believes it to be. We have about 560 tourist information centres. They are of increasing quality and are extremely important to our tourist industry. I take the point about Dover; I have had a number of representations about it and I am looking into the matter.

Restart

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretry of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the restart programme.

The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Since July 1986, more than 5 million interviews have been carried out under the restart programme, of which just under 90 per cent. have resulted in an offer of positive help being made. The restart programme now offers interviews at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been out of work for six months or more. In addition, certain clients are now offered follow-up interviews in order to provide further guidance and support. Since September 1988, the programme has delivered the Government's guarantee to people aged between 18 and 24 who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months of the offer of a place on employment training, in a job club or on the enterprise allowance scheme.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply and report. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the fact that so many people are being helped back into employment. Can my hon. Friend tell us the proportion of people going into employment training from a restart interview and the number going into direct employment from the interview? Does he have any figures on those matters?

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right. The purpose of restart interviews is to try to help long-term unemployed people to find a job or some other suitable opportunity instead of simply leaving them to languish out there. My hon. Friend asks about referrals to employment training. About 130,000 people have been referred since ET started in September 1988.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that the Government's pit closure programme has encouraged people who worked in the industry for I know not how many years to accept redundancy? Now they are being told that they will have to go on to the restart programme. After all this time and after promises were made when redundancy was accepted, they are now told that if they do not sign on for restart they will have their benefit cut. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point so clearly. The terms and conditions of deals worked out with the miners are more properly matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. In general terms, it has always been the position that anybody signing on and claiming benefit has to be available for work. That is a general rule.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: In testifying to the fantastic reduction in the number of unemployed in the west midlands—one of the best figures in the country and due in large measure to the restart programme—may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that the main problem now

is no so much one of finding jobs for the unemployed, because vacancies exist, but unfortunately in recognising that many of the unemployed are unemployable? Employers with vacancies are finding that prospective employees do not come up to the calibre that is required, and when they are taken on for employment training many of them lack basic numeracy and literacy skills.

Mr. Nicholls: All that I have seen during my relatively short time in this job leads me to the conclusion that very few people are unemployable. I accept, however, that many people need much care and help to get themselves back into the labour market, and the overwhelming majority of unemployed people want to take advantage of that. We are specifically spending about £1·5 billion on employment training so that we do not leave people to languish without the skills that they might need but help them to get back into the labour market.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Why was the Minister so coy in responding to his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) about the number of people helped back into full-time permanent employment? Perhaps I can help him. Will he confirm that surveys show that perhaps only 1 per cent. of people in the restart scheme are going into full-time permanent employment? Given that the bulk of restarts lead people into the now discredited ET schemes, will the Minister tell the House when the Government will seriously begin the process of offering the long-term unemployed adequate skills training so that they can get back into real work?

Mr. Nicholls: I have been accused of many things at the Dispatch Box, but coyness has never been one of them. The whole point of a restart interview is to look at people who are either long-term unemployed or heading that way and to try to make some positive offer. In some cases, that could lead to a job right away but all sorts of other disposals can also help. It may be a question of referring people to job clubs, about 440,000 have been submitted to such clubs. It might be a question of referring people to the enterprise allowance scheme; and there have been about 200,000 referrals there. People may also be submitted for jobs; about 460,000 have been so submitted.
There is a whole range of options that long-term unemployed people need to help them. In saying that we cannot guarantee people a full-time job right away, the hon. Gentleman is like other members of his party—he is still living in the 1950s.

Centre for European Business Information

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what use has been made by firms of the centre for European business information set up within the small firms service.

Mr. Cope: Over 2,400 inquiries have been made to the European information centre since it was set up in the London office of the small firms service in December 1987.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is the part payment with the European Commission helping to set up other regional centres? Can he give us some more information about those centres so that more small firms can use them? That will enable them to defend their home


market and to expand in the European Community through a better understanding of the rules and regulations in the Community.

Mr. Cope: The Community is making proposals for a further 20 centres throughout this country and others overseas. Three other centres are already functioning in Birmingham, Newcastle and Glasgow. The four that operate at present are pilot centres. They can be contacted through our own small firms offices all over the country and it is extremely important that small firms in particular make use of them.

Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the high degree of language skills that will be required by business men seeking to operate in the wider Community after 1992? What steps is his Department taking, through the small business service and its European assistants, to provide further teaching and guidance for small business men to help them expand their language skills?

Mr. Cope: The small firms service and the European information centre are not in the business of training; they are in the business of advice and counselling, but the Training Agency is paying attention to the problem of language training which, as my hon. Friend says, is extremely important as 1992 approaches.

Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that more than 150,000 small firms have gone bankrupt or suffered company liquidation in the 10 years of this Government, including the small firm that succeeded in Alf Roberts' corner shop in Grantham, which went bankrupt last year, and in view of the 18 per cent. borrowing rate for small businesses, as declared by the Financial Times last week, what advice will the Minister be giving to small firms now to help them keep their heads above water?

Mr. Cope: The number of small firms which started up and succeeded exceeds the number of those to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention which did not succeed. It is most important to obtain proper advice and counselling. The advice that I would give to people thinking of setting up in business, or who are already in business, is to make sure that they obtain proper advice. It is widely availale both from our small firms service and from local enterprise agencies and others where expert counselling is available. The figures show that those small firms that take advice are much more likely to succeed.

Small Firms Service

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many centres are now operated by the small firms service in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cope: The small firms service in England operates through 11 centres and six inner-city sub-offices. There are two centres in Scotland and one in Wales operated by the respective development agencies.

Mr. Hayward: My right hon. Friend referred to the six inner-city sub-offices. How successful are those offices and what efforts are being concentrated on trying to achieve a growth in the development of small firms in inner-city areas?

Mr. Cope: A number of our main offices are also in inner cities. About eight of the 11 are in inner cities in England, in addition to the six special offices to which I referred. Everyone in the inner cities is now within easy reach of a small firms centre as well as a local enterprise agency. We are also trying to build up the number of ethnic minority counsellors and special inner-city advisers and many of our counselling offices are also in inner cities.

Mr. Rowe: In view of the excellent record of the small firms service, it would not be at all surprising if my right hon. Friend was at times tempted to be complacent. Is he aware that the only criticism that I have heard is that the reliance on retired business consultants or business consultants who come from large firms occasionally leads to inappropriate advice? Is he keeping a close watch on those who have felt less satisfied with the service than the vast majority?

Mr. Cope: Inevitably, those who are retired or semi-retired are more likely to have the time and inclination to help small firms. That is understandable, but we want to get as much of a spread as we can.

Tourism (Casinos)

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has included consideration of the casino industry in the current review on tourism.

Mr. Lee: The review team has consulted with a large number of people involved in all aspects of the tourism industry, including casinos.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm the valuable contribution that the casino industry makes to British tourism, not least in my constituency of Bournemouth? But does he agree that that contribution is nothing compared with the contribution that the industry makes in Europe to tourism there? Will he now seek to remove all those petty restrictions, such as the 24-hour rule, which are proving so damaging to our casino industry?

Mr. Lee: I acknowledge the contribution that casinos make, although their importance can be exaggerated. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's constituency interest in the matter. When the review team received consultations and representations, no particular issues were raised by companies with casino interests, though obviously Home Office Ministers will receive and hear the comments of my hon. Friend regarding casinos.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the current review will include a sufficient number of cases to enable it to examine small businesses and the contribution. they make to tourism? Will he ensure that the review results in suggestions being made to encourage more growth in small businesses involved in the tourism industry?

Mr. Speaker: In the casino industry.

Mr. Lee: I hear the comments that my hon. Friend makes about the review. I am satisfied that the review team had adequate opportunity to hear a whole range of representations from large and small firms—including casinos.

Construction Industry (Deaths)

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he intends to take to reduce deaths in the construction industry.

Mr. Nicholls: Prime responsibility for health and safety rests with employers and others in the industry. However, new regulations are being prepared which provide for the management and co-ordination of health and safety on multi-contractor sites; which increase the number of safety supervisors in smaller companies; and which amend the site notification procedure to identify sites where there are high risk activities. The introduction of regulations which would make the wearing of safety helmets compulsory on construction sites is also planned.
In addition to concentrating on the inspection of the more hazardous activities in the industry, Health and Safety Executive inspectors will also be paying more attention to the quality of site management and its ability to manage health and safety. They will be looking at the level of training and supervision that has been provided and the precautions that have been taken to prevent accidents. They will pursue their inquiries and any enforcement action to the highest levels in companies which do not measure up to the standards expected of them.

Mr. Doran: Is it not a fact that the number of deaths and fatalities in the building and construction industry is increasing dramatically and that two major contributory factors are the failure by the Government to deal with self-employed and lump labour and the great reduction in the number of health and safety inspectors? Considering the number of deaths, it is as though we have a Piper Alpha disaster in the building industry every year. Will it take a disaster of those proportions to encourage the Government to take real action to stop deaths occurring in the construction industry?

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the number of deaths in the construction industry has risen and is rising and is at a wholly unacceptable level. But I do not accept his analysis entirely of the reasons for that. In terms of the number of inspectors employed, it must be remembered that merely employing inspectors does not automatically produce a reduction in fatalities, and there is no evidence to suggest that it does.[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures—and at least he, unlike some of his hon. Friends, is paying attention to my reply —in 1979, for instance, there were 86 inspectors employed in terms of construction, at present there are 90 and HSE has plans to recruit another 10.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Health and Safety Executive is experiencing difficulty in recruiting new inspectors in some parts of the country? That is not because of the overall lack of resources but because the wage levels offered are uncompetitive with the private sector in those areas.

Mr. Nicholls: There is always a problem about employing people of the right calibre. If my hon. Friend is concerned about resources, I can tell him that the Government gave an extra £6·7 million in 1988–89 and for 1989–90 provision will be enhanced by a further £8·8

million. That will result in an increase of about 10 per cent. in the number of inspectors employed as construction inspectors.

Mr. Heller: Why does the Minister have to be so defensive? There is a growing number of deaths and serious injuries in the industry. There were about 157 deaths last year. Is it not clear that the growth of lump labour and self-employment is making a serious contribution to the level of deaths and injuries? Is it not also clear that we are not training the correct people in the industry because of a lack of apprenticeships and so on? Is it not clear that some people put profits before the interests of the workers in the industry? Whatever the Government are doing, it is not enough.—[Interruption.] I am talking about people dying.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is having a long run.

Mr. Heifer: It might be long, but I am talking about the deaths of ordinary, honest working people who are dying in the industry because of the Government's lack of responsibility towards them.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman started better than he finished. I am not being defensive. When I replied to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) I said that the prime responsibility for health and safety must remain with those engaged in the industry. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the deaths are being caused by a growth in lump labour. There is more to it than that. It is true—the figures bear it out—that if there is a boom, one sees such figures. If the hon. Gentleman wants a standard of comparison—perhaps he does not—I shall provide it. He rightly referred to the 157 deaths occurring now but in the last boom in 1975—a date that the hon. Gentleman will remember—there were 182 deaths a year. Whether the figure is 182 or 157, I accept that it is too high.

Mr. Strang: Does not the report published last week by the Health and Safety Executive on its construction site safety blitz amply demonstrate that the proposed increase in the number of safety inspectors for the industry from 90 to 100 is inadequate to tackle the widespread dangerous working conditions in the industry? What is the Minister's response to the offer by the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians to put its 160 full-time officials on loan to the Health and Safety Executive for one day a week to act as part-time safety inspectors, with their wages paid by the union?

Mr. Nicholls: The Health and Safety Executive has to consider any offers that it receives and decide how such offers fit in with the task it has to perform. The report, "Blackspot Construction" showed that 90 per cent. of deaths between 1981 and 1985 were preventable and 70 per cent. could have been prevented by positive management action. Information such as that points the way forward.

Employment Training

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken places on the employment training programme in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: Employment training has made a very successful start. Currently there are about 110,000 people


in training with training managers. Unemployed people clearly recognise the benefits the programme has to offer and the opportunity it provides to help them get a job.

Mr. Coombs: I welcome the figures given by my right hon. Friend and the fact that 12,000 people in the west midlands are on the employment training programme. Does he agree that one of the most important aspects of the programme is that it appeals particularly to older workers with large families who were previously on high state benefits? Given the coming demographic trends wth the fall in the number of school leavers, it is that group that British industry most needs to retrain and re-skill.

Mr. Fowler: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Unemployment is falling faster in the west midlands than anywhere else in the country. Employment training is a major programme for long-term unemployed people and it has been introduced at a time when there are 700,000 unfilled job vacancies in the economy. That is the opportunity for unemployed people.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that the client group for employment training is 1,147,000 and that the target for the programme is 600,000 in one year, which means that it is 300,000 at any given time? Therefore is it not the case that the programme is reaching one in 10 of the client group and achieving only one third of the Government's target? Does the Secretary of State regard that as a success or failure.

Mr. Fowler: The programme is developing and reaching more long-term unemployed people than before. In addition, there are 700,000 unfilled vacancies, many of which can be filled without any training whatsoever. Therefore, there is a mixture of unfilled jobs and opportunities through employment training. However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for employment training. I only wish that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) would do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's press reports that the consultants Arthur Young who were commissioned by the Football League recommended that the Government's proposal for football should be welcomed and implemented in the interests of the game? Will she take steps to encourage Arthur Young to publish the full report and make it available to Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: Like my hon. Friend I have seen reports of the report. Of course it is for those who commissioned the report to decide whether it should be made available to hon. Members. I hope that they will do so. I recall that on 9 November the Government published

the report of the working party under my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport. I hope that others will follow that advice.

Mr. Kinnock: The police, football supporters, players and administrators are all strongly opposed to the Prime Minister's compulsory identity card scheme. Just for once, why does she not listen to their voices of experience and knowledge, and scrap the idea now?

The Prime Minister: No. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. When one examines the record of hooliganism and the numbers of arrests which took place last year and during this season, it is time that we accepted the original recommendations of the Popplewell committee and introduced a national membership scheme for designated grounds.

Mr. Kinnock: The Police Federation, whose members, for obvious reasons, are acknowledged experts on this subject, say that
This scheme is not going to work. When it breaks down, it will do so on match days and give rise to the threat of even worse disorder than it seeks to suppress.
Does the Prime Minister not understand that the problem of hooliganism is now not inside the grounds but away from the grounds? In the very course of completely missing that point, her scheme will add to the problems of the police and people living near football grounds and of the genuine fans without touching the thugs.

The Prime Minister: No. The fact that people can easily get into matches without membership cards of any kind attracts a particular type of hooligan to that place, both inside and outside the grounds. We have taken many steps to deal with that. We are now taking up the recommendation in the original Popplewell report that there should be a national membership scheme. Last year there were 6,147 arrests at football league matches and 6,542 ejections from the grounds. The taxpayer has to foot the substantial bill for the extra police presence outside the grounds every Saturday to limit the violence and, aggression for which football provides a focus. Clubs that have introduced 100 per cent. local membership cards have had very much better records since they have done so and families can once again watch football in those grounds.

Mr. Kinnock: Anyone who knows anything about football realises that the Prime Minister is talking through the back of her neck. The number of arrests inside football grounds is a fraction of the number she gives. The mere supervision of the scheme that she is trying to introduce will incur, because of police presence and expense, a cost vastly greater than that incurred at present.

The Prime Minister: When it comes to speaking through the back of the neck, I cannot hold a candle to the right hon. Gentleman.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the question.

The Prime Minister: Clubs that have introduced membership cards have a much better record inside their grounds, and find that hooligans are not attracted to the areas outside them. We should observe the enormous improvement that has come about among those clubs and take up the proposals considered by the working party, which were made by Mr. Justice Popplewell when he first addressed the problem.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend come to Luton Town football club on a Saturday afternoon, accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.] Would she like to go through the middle of the town which, because of that club's membership scheme, enjoys peace and quiet, and where there is no intimidation of ordinary citizens, and where football hooligans do not exist? The people of Luton and of every town in the United Kingdom look forward to the introduction of the membership scheme.

The Prime Minister: We believe that Luton's example should be followed, to benefit football and its spectators.

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Prime Minister accept that her Minister's description of Prime Minister Shamir of Israel as a "reformed terrorist" was not meant as an insult but as a compliment? Will she use her influence to persuade him to talk to the other reformed terrorist, Yasser Arafat, in the interest of both their peoples and of peace in the middle east generally?

The Prime Minister: There has been no change in our middle east policy. Some years ago, we laid down three conditions to be met before we would talk to any PLO members. Those three conditions were met, so we thought it right that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office should talk to the PLO. I have asked Mr. Shamir to come here so that we can discuss the matter. It will take considerable time for any negotiations to get under way. Nothing can be started before the new United States Administration is well in position and have decided precisely what is their policy. Meanwhile, we believe that the answer to the deep-seated problems of the middle east is negotiations that honour the rights of all parties. It is our purpose to get those negotiations going under the United States' leadership.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the steadily worsening situation in the Sudan and of the resulting suffering and deaths there? Given Britain's historic ties with that country and the excellent administration that existed there in colonial times, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what assistance—whether material supplies or diplomacy—Her Majesty's Government are able to provide in the current emergency?

The Prime Minister: For the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, we are very much aware of the conditions in the Sudan. It has been very difficult to conduct relief operations there, particularly in the southern part of the country, although we have contributed to the world food programme's airlift into Juba in the southern part, and the recent International Red Cross operation. We provided £15·4 million in emergency assistance to Sudan last year, and are ready to give further help in 1989. [Interruption.]

I would have thought that Opposition Members would be quite pleased that we had provided £15·4 million in emergency assistance. Not in the least: they could not care less.

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Robertson: The Prime Minister referred to three conditions laid down for talks with the PLO. As the Government have now agreed in principle to a human rights conference in Moscow to be held in 1992, can we assume that when President Gorbachev comes to Britain —at the end of this month or next month—Mr. Bernard Ingham will be giving a different impression to the press about a possible royal visit to the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure which point the hon. Gentleman expects me to take up from that somewhat muddled question, which started in the middle east and went on to the human rights conference. We have agreed in principle to a human rights conference in Moscow, but only provided that our demands for certain improvements are fully met, not only in particular cases but in Soviet law and in relation to basic guarantees of freedom. I believe that it was right to take that stance.
When Mr. Gorbachev comes here the arrangements that we had before will persist, under which, of course, Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to receive him. We do not answer hypothetical questions about invitations before they have been received—not on this side of the House.

Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks made by Mr. John Hickey of the Civil and Public Services Association, who has said that claimants will receive a worse service when social security jobs are moved out of London? Apart from the fact that the service could not be much worse in London anyway, does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents are insulted at the notion that a job has to be done in London to be done well? Will she reassure us that the Government will make every effort to move public sector jobs out of the capital into the rest of the country, particularly the midlands, where they will be very welcome?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I am frequently asked at this Dispatch Box whether we will make arrangements to move jobs from London and the south-east to areas where they are more needed. It is not always easy to do so, and it is very disappointing that when we make such arrangements to have those jobs the better carried out, the unions oppose us. I hope that they will reconsider the attitude that they have taken.

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 Janury.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bradley: Has the Prime Minister read the report in today's Daily Express that her Agriculture Minister has met farmers 37 times and consumer representatives only twice? Will she now sack him and replace him with someone who represents consumer interests seriously?

The Prime Minister: I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister will receive representatives of consumer interests who wish to make representations to him. We must also remember that it is in the interests of farmers, and those of the entire food industry, for them to strive to produce food of the highest possible quality. Of course, farmers too are consumers.

Mr. Boswell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the suppression of democratic opinion in Prague that took place at the weekend? Does she agree that it has made no contribution to either the image or the reality of the common European house?

The Prime Minister: I expect that many of us saw scenes on television in which peaceful demonstrations in Prague in memory of a student who had taken his own life were forcibly broken up, and were somewhat dismayed. I think that that fully justifies the approach that we took—that we would not attend a human rights conference in Moscow unless certain strict criteria were met. Although much is said and many improvements have been made, such things are still going on, and we could not possibly attend a human rights conference in Moscow unless we observed improvements in what actually happens, as distinct from good speeches.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that cleaners in hospitals in Edinburgh should be robbed of their pension rights and of all sick pay because of her policies?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that that is the case. Those who work in the National Health Service have had a far better deal under this Government, because of increased resources, than they have ever had before.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: As a representative of an inner-city area, could I have the reassurance of my right hon. Friend that in view of the worsening problem of the availability of cocaine, and in particular crack, the Government have taken every possible step to eradicate the problem in its infancy before it is allowed to increase to the state it has in America, where it is proving impossible to curtail?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course that is our aim. It is indeed a very dangerous drug and we shall do everything possible to see it does not get the kind of hold here that it did in America. Of course, that is more easily said than done. We shall strive to do everything possible to achieve that objective.

Tunis (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of his Minister of State to Tunis.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I visited Tunis from 12 to 16 January for meetings with Tunisian leaders and to chair a meeting of the heads of British missions in the region. While there I met the PLO Chairman, Mr. Yasser Arafat. This meeting followed the statement made in London on 9 December by Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, a senior PLO adviser, and the commitments made by Mr. Arafat in Geneva on 14 December. Both these met our long-standing conditions for further ministerial contact with the PLO.

Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the continued death toll in the Israeli occupied territories, including daily shootings of Palestinian children and teenagers as well as the deaths of Israeli Jews, is unacceptable and must be stopped? Will he agree not only with me but with the senior Israeli army officer and with the Israeli Minister of Defence, Yitzak Rabin, whom I met during my visit to Israel from which I returned earlier this month, that the Palestinian intifada, now in its fourteenth month, can be brought to an end only by a political solution? That remains true even with the harsher measures announced today by the Israelis. They may kill more Palestinians; they will not kill the intifada.
Will the hon. Gentleman agree further that Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva last month have made a political solution available? Did Chairman Arafat say to him last week in Tunis, as he certainly did to me, that at an international conference the Palestine Liberation Organisation would be ready to compromise in order to reach a negotiated settlement and that the PLO would be ready to consider participating in a joint Arab delegation to such a conference? Will he therefore reaffirm that an international conference under the auspices of the five permanent members of the Security Council is by far the best mechanism for solving this tragic problem of providing both security for Israel and justice for the Palestinians?
It is inevitable that sooner or later Israel will speak to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The Israeli Government should see sense. They should be willing to test the good faith of the PLO. They should choose peace by negotiation. They should agree to talk now. It is time to end the spilling of blood in the Holy Land.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is seldom, I think, that I have faced a series of propositions put by the right hon. Member to which I can answer yes with such confidence. The truth is that we believe British Government policy remains the same. It remains as the right hon. Gentleman has just stated it, that we believe that there should be a political solution, and we also believe that conditions now are propitious for steps towards such a solution. It is easy to understand why the Israeli people have deep anxieties. Our belief is that the steps taken by the PLO should, in the words of the noble Lord Rothschild, now be tested by searching negotiations.

Mr. Michael Latham: I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's last remark.
For the avoidance of doubt, following my hon. Friend's worthwhile meeting with Mr. Arafat, will he confirm that it is not British policy to support without any question the setting up of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank or Gaza?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It remains our belief that some kind of confederative state with Jordan is the right outcome and, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, one of the positive steps that has been taken by Mr. Arafat, affirmed in the clearest terms to me, is to say that that is not an option for the PLO; it is the objective of the PLO.

Sir Russell Johnston: First, is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House would congratulate him on the way in which he conducted the meeting? Secondly, was it his clear impression that Mr. Arafat was willing to have negotiations on the firm basis that the reality and the security of the state of Israel would be recognised? Thirdly, did he have any talks about the difficult question of Jerusalem?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said and for the terms of his question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier. The PLO is stating—this is what should now be tested—that it has made an historic shift from a one-state solution to a two-state solution, which assumes that there will be a home for Israel behind secure boundaries and that, in confederation with Jordan, there should be territory in which the Palestinians live. That, surely, is a great step forward.
It would not be right at this stage to start to explore the issues that we can all see should be negotiated between the principal parties at the conference for which we are all working.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members will join with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) in congratulating my hon. Friend on the efforts that he is making to ensure peace between Israel and the Arab countries? Has not the time now come for the friends of Israel to make it clear that the world will also expect Israel to explore the possibilities of peace, otherwise a great opportunity may be missed?

Mr. Waldegrave: The seriousness with which the House and many people in Britain take these issues is due to the fact that there are so many genuine friends of Israel in the House who fear for the long-term security of that nation and its people if the right steps are not taken. In that I would strongly associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said. Surely in the long term Israel can exist, as all Israeli leaders past and present know, only if she has secure borders that are agreed with her neighbours.

Mr. Greville Janner: On the day after a savage letter bomb intended for Israel's ambassador in London was intercepted, does the Minister not see that this issue is highly sensitive? Does he appreciate that he is more likely to succeed in what we all want, which is bringing people to a negotiating table, through private


persuasion rather than by publicly lecturing and tactlessly attacking Israel's democratically elected leaders while sitting beside the man who, until recently, was responsible for a series of savage terrorist attacks on Israel's people?

Mr. Waldegrave: I lectured no one and the Government are second to none in their opposition to all forms of terrorism. Let me try once again to leave with the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman the message that I was trying to get across. Let me use words which come from a book which the majority of hon. Members share with the majority of people in Israel—the book of Ecclesiastes—which says that there is
A time to kill, and a time to heal … a time of war, and a time of peace.
We believe that there is just now a concatenation of events which might lead to peace.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend accept that what he has been saying is utter common sense and that it is time that the Government of Israel sat down, under these new conditions, to see whether there is as much in it as most of us hope? Does he agree that the recent initiative of the Council of Europe to try to bring together the disparate nations in the middle east may be worth pursuing?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree. Although I reaffirm that the central part in these matters must lie with the United States, Europe—and Britain within Europe—has an important role. We welcome also the steps that will be taken by the troika of the past presidency, the present presidency and the next presidency of the European Comunity at the end of January, which will be helpful.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate the Minister on his successful discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which followed the discussions I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) had with that organisation. The Minister should feel confident that he speaks for not only both sides of the House when he is speaking to the PLO and in subsequent statements, but for the overwhelming majority of people in this country, who believe that if one is to be a proper friend one must tell the truth. The Palestinians want peace, and they want to sit down with the only people with whom peace is possible—the Israelis. It is the responsibility of any sensible politician to make that clear on each and every occasion possible.

Mr. Waldegrave: Both in the terms of what the hon. Gentleman has said and in the terms and content of what the right hon. Member for Gorton said, we are surely sending a message from the House that there is a basis of all-party support for our approach. The hon. Gentleman is right in a further matter. We would not bother to speak in such terms—I hope that everybody will realise that they come from the heart—unless we cared about the future of Israel.

Sir Dennis Walters: Does my hon. Friend accept that his meeting with Mr. Arafat has been greatly welcomed and that his perfectly sensible and accurate comments about the Israeli Prime Minister should not be allowed to obscure the reality, which is that the PLO has now accepted resolutions 242 and 338 and agreed to renounce any form of violence? What is Israel's response? Does Israel accept the resolutions, and is it prepared to talk about peace and a two-state solution?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It is because the PLO has met the long-standing tests that the British Government have laid down for ministerial contact that. I met Mr. Arafat. The British Government have been among those who have been most careful, and often difficult in the eyes of some Arabs, about contact with the PLO. We hope, therefore, that our friends in Israel will note that and note that we are unlikely to have taken that step unless we had considered it carefully. We hope that Israel will take that as some reassurance that it too should take further steps.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear that if Israel refuses to negotiate in any circumstances, two results will flow from that? One is that Israel will become increasingly isolated even from its friends in western Europe. The second is that it will be a victory for those in the Arab world who decisively reject what the PLO has decided to do. It will be the Gaddafis of this world who will be victorious. Is it also not the case that what the Minister said was right? There is no need for us to be critical of the Minister. I speak as one who has not wavered for a moment since 1948 in my support for the right of Israel to exist, although I have certainly never supported many of its policies. I supported Israel in the war of independence in 1948, and I supported, in the House, Israel's actions in 1967.

Mr. Waldegrave: There have been occasions in the past when I have agreed with the hon. Gentleman's first sentence or two, but I have never before had a question from him with which I could agree throughout.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Have the Government qualified their support for Palestinian self-determination by saying that they accept it only if it is in confederation with Jordan? This surely is a decision that the Palestinians must be allowed to make. Many people will be very interested in my hon. Friend's answer.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is not a matter of our accepting or not accepting a solution. Mr. Arafat himself made it clear to me—and, I think, to the right hon. Member for Gorton —that that is the objective of the PLO. It seems to us a very sensible objective, and we support it.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the Minister on his fruitful visit, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who also had a succesful visit. I accept that Mr. Arafat's statements at Algiers and Geneva represent a step forward. While urging Israel to come to the negotiating table, however, will the Minister also urge it not to push ahead with proposed new settlements in the occupied lands as that proposal is immensely provocative and would be a backward step in terms of achieving peace?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. On his latter point, there is indeed a problem. I understand that the new Government in Israel have proposed greatly to slow down the creation of new settlements. That is welcome in itself, but I suppose that every new settlement produces an additional problem ultimately for the negotiations that we hope will come about in the end.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that everyone applauds his good intentions and the good sense of what he has had to say today? Is he also aware that


it is a very odd kind of diplomacy in which the honest broker begins by humiliating and offending one of the parties to the dispute? Will he please be more careful in future?

Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly did not intend to humiliate anybody. The state of Israel and its leaders are powerful and confident. As I said earlier to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the great gift of statesmanship is surely to know when to lay down arms and move to peace.

Mr. Stuart Bell: As one who has recently been in Israel, will the Minister confirm that the question of secure borders is a question of life and death for Israel and that there must therefore be some reluctance on the Israelis' part to deal with the PLO? Does not the Minister agree that 1·2 million Israelis nevertheless voted at the last election for discussions about the future of the west bank? Does he further agree that, now that we have been discussing Palestine in the House for about 60 years, only an even-handed approach to both parties can have any constructive effect in the middle east?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Even-handedness is the objective of our policy. I hope that I shall be visiting Israel shortly and no doubt I shall say things to the Israelis that may be unpalatable to some on the Arab side. There are sensitivities on both sides, but we should not be so careful to avoid offending everyone's sensibilities that we say nothing.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who have been associated with, and indeed are officers of, the Conservative Friends of Israel strongly endorse his meeting with Mr. Arafat in Tripoli last week and look forward to the Israeli Government shortly finding themselves able to explore negotiations directly with the PLO?

Mr. Waldegrave: The support of my hon. Friend is particularly valuable as his work on this issue is well known. I believe that he is right about what is needed and that the job of those who wish Israel well is to help to map out strategies that can lead ultimately to the conference which we all support.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the wake of the Lockerbie air disaster, Yasser Arafat allegedly offered to supply information and assistance to help the American authorities to track down the terrorists responsible? Can he assure the House that that was one of the topics that he took up with the Chairman of the PLO when he met him?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes. I thanked Mr. Arafat for what he had said, which was welcome in this country, and said that if any help could be given it would help to still those who doubted his sincerity. That must be true, although I am in no position to know whether he can give any help.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is widely to be welcomed that there is a spirit in the House that Israel and the Arab nations need to talk about the future of the middle east? Does he recall the wise words 20 years ago of

Mr. George Brown, the then Foreign Secretary, who said, "The Arabs can afford to lose more than one war; Israel cannot afford to lose one"? Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to have peaceful talks, the nation of Israel, which shines as a beacon of people who have been oppressed throughout the ages, should say, "Whatever talks take place, we must have more than paper promises that we shall be allowed to exist"?

Mr. Waldegrave: I wholly agree with the sentiments quoted by my hon. Friend, which emphasise two points. The first is the importance of achieving a peaceful settlement from Israel's point of view, and the second is the fact that we should test and work with those in the Palestinian movement and in the Arab states who are talking the language of diplomacy, not the language of terrorism. My hon. Friend is quite right: more than words will ultimately be needed, and Israel must ultimately have secure frontiers that are agreed and guaranteed.

Mr. Peter Shore: If Mr. Arafat has agreed to a confederal solution with Jordan, which is a welcome and important step, does that mean that the PLO is abandoning its previous insistence that the capital of a new PLO-based or PLO-agreed state would have to be Jerusalem?

Mr. Waldegrave: In answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I said that I did not think that it was right in that meeting to ask the PLO—any more than I would ask the Israelis—to put its position on the central issues that will need to be negotiated at the peace conference on the table in too much detail. The issue to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has referred will clearly be one of the most thorny issues facing that peace conference. It would not be fair to the negotiating teams that we hope to see emerging on both sides to press them now to lay all their cards on the table.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to take the lead in this matter, given the difficulties that the United States has traditionally had in coming out clearly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has the support of the 11 other members of the European Community for his initiative? When he goes to Israel, will he continue to remind the Israelis that the foundation of the state of Israel was not without violence and that we must therefore try to look at Mr. Arafat in the terms that he is now putting forward?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Members of the European Community are taking parallel positions on this issue, and the troika will meet Mr. Arafat later this month. In response to the latter part of my hon. Friend's comments, yes, we are saying that the PLO seems to be saying that it wants to lay aside the gun, so surely we must test whether that is sincere. If it is, nothing could be more important.

Mr. Richard Alexander: May I commend my hon. Friend for pointing out that those with a history of terrorism should not stress too much the terrorist aspects of their opponents? Would it not help the peace process considerably if both sides could sit around the table without attempting to hang perjorative labels around each other's necks?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber saw most clearly what I was trying to say in my comments on the past—that in the history of the world it is unusual for people to have the courage to lay aside their weapons, and that when they do we should pay tribute to them. The PLO says that that is what it is now doing, so surely we should test its sincerity to see whether what it is saying is true. We believe that it is, but I quite understand that the Israelis will not take my word for it, and that is why we need real negotiations.

Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome my hon. Friend's trip to Tunis this weekend. Does he accept that opportunities must be given to the PLO so that it can prove that it has transformed itself from a belief in the use of violence to a belief in the use of peace? Will he convince the Israeli Government that any intransigence on their part that might forestall the beginning of the peace process, which would have been unheard of five years ago, will gravely damage the prospects of peace in the middle east and severely damage Israel's reputation with its numerous friends who wish it well?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course, it was part of my objective—as I believe it was part of the objective of the right hon. Member for Gorton—in meeting Mr. Arafat to urge on him the importance of the maintenance of this moderate and clear position and to explain to him the need for some patience, because these matters will not be settled in a few weeks. Equally, it is important that the message should go from all Israel's friends that what it does can have a crucial impact on Arab and Palestinian opinion—for example, in relation to the Lebanon.

BREL (1988) Ltd.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement concerning BREL (1988) Ltd., formerly known as British Rail Engineering Ltd.
As the House knows, the Railways Board has selected a consortium of the management and employees of BREL, Trafalgar House plc and Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. as preferred bidder for the purchase of its engineering subsidiary BREL (1988) Ltd. The board's choice follows a competitive tender for the business. Bids were received from two groups.
The board and its advisers, Lazard Brothers. have undertaken extensive negotiations with both bidders over the past three months. The board's evaluation of their final offers showed that the bid from the consortium was the more attractive in financial terms, and that it also offered clear financial advantages over the option of the board retaining ownership of BREL. The board has also secured fair arrangements for the BREL staff, who will be transferring to the new owners, including provisions for pension rights and concessionary travel facilities.
The Government have taken independent advice from Lloyds merchant bank. We are satisfied that the board has followed normal commercial procedures in reaching its decision and has fully tested the market for potential purchasers.
At this stage, there are no grounds on which the Government wish to interfere with the board's commercial judgment. Subject to the final terms of the sale and purchase contract being satisfactory to the Government, we would expect to give consent to the sale in due course. Final clearance is also subject to approval by the European Commission and to the decision which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take once he receives advice from the Director-General of Fair Trading. Subject to those points, I would hope that the sale could be completed as soon as possible.
BREL has been through a period of major change, reflecting the new investment being made in modern rolling stock and the reduction in repair work which follows from this. BREL has made good progress towards a modern, competitive railway engineering business. The people who work at BREL have played a major part.
The time is now right for BREL to move on into the private sector. BREL will now have more opportunities to diversify and compete for new business. The company should derive technological and commercial benefits, and access to the advanced engineering techniques of a world leading manufacturer.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in November 1987, when he announced the decision to offer BREL for sale, privatisation will be good for the railway, good for the railway supply industry and good for BR EL itself. I hope that the House will join me in wishing the company and its work force every success for the future.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the Minister accept that almost 20,000 jobs have been lost in British Rail Engineering Ltd. in the past five years and that the work force has been reduced by approximately 75 per cent., that the company has been systematically run down and starved of orders, that the state has picked up the financial bill necessary to achieve such a massive reduction and now the private sector is to gain all the assets?
Does the Minister accept that four railway Bills are due to come before the House in the current Parliament; that great interest has been expressed in many of our cities in developing light railways as the people-movers of the future; and that at a time when people are increasingly looking to the railways to help solve the problems of traffic congestion and overcrowding, the Government continue to contract our capacity for railway building and to sell off what is left? What guarantee do we have that the new company will be able to cope with the orders that are likely to emerge in the next few years?
The Minister referred to the deal being "attractive in financial terms" and he talked about the "final terms of the sale". What do those two phrases mean? Has a price been agreed or has it not? If so, what is it? Is that a final statement about the future of BREL or just an interim one? What happens if someone else, whether GEC or a third party, makes a better offer? When does the Minister expect the sale to be finally completed?
Does the Minister accept that his statement today could lead, within two or three years, to the end of all railway engineering in this country? How can that be good for anyone other than our industrial competitors? How will that help us to meet the transport needs of the 1990s? What effect will it have on our balance of payments problem? Does it mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will castigate us all for overspending and hike up mortgage rates once again in an attempt to remedy our balance of payments problem?
We reject the idea that privatisation will be good for the railway industry or for BREL. On the contrary—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that this is funny, but the Labour party does not. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) would not know a railway if he fell on the tracks. We believe that, once again, the Government have made a major costly error that in time the railway industry and the nation will reject.

Mr. Portillo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not be a bit more fulsome in his welcome for the announcement.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that many jobs have been lost. I recognise that, and it is a serious matter. We are now trying to address the question of how the company can have a future. I hope that he will join me in trying to find the best solution.
The hon. Gentleman said that the company has been starved of orders, but its order book is at present worth £400 million and it was awarded a new order only last Wednesday, which I announced then. Recently, it has been gaining about 70 per cent. of the orders which it has been offered by British Rail.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what was the sense of the sale. The best thing that I can do is to refer to the managing director of BREL, who said that there would be considerable
management continuity during a very important phase of the company's development.
I think the other factor is the technical strength of the technology package which ABB is going to bring with it. We also have sound financial backing and good marketing opportunities.

This sale represents an injection of major technology into BREL. Now there is the opportunity for BREL to join a European consortium and bid for orders not only in this country but elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether this was an interim statement. I am not prepared to reveal to him the price—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it is a commercially confidential matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the price was superior to the other bid, but negotiations will continue.
I do not believe that there should be any bid from any other person now because I regard the bidding as closed. If for any reason the negotiations could not be completed satisfactorily, it would be a different matter.
The problem in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, which I appreciate, is that it is difficult for him to welcome a privatisation. I believe that, in his heart of hearts, he recognises that the news that I have given today is good news for BREL. I believe that he should welcome, as the trade unions have welcomed, the fact that the bidder has been successful.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: My hon. Friend should ignore the twitterings of Labour Members, who, in the words of one of their hon. Friends, could not run a whelk stall.
My hon. Friend's statement will be extremely welcome in Derby, where we already have a magnificent example of a privatised engineering company that has gone on to beat the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that the consortium could do a Rolls-Royce job on BREL and that its future will be far sweeter in the private sector than it ever would have been with British Rail?

Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to say that the statement will be broadly welcomed in Derby. My hon. Friend recognises, as I do, that it is a combination of BREL with the expertise of Asea Brown Boveri—which sees scope for extensive co-operation with BREL in product development marketing and production technology—that gives the group tremendous strength for the future.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Is the Minister aware that the work force in Derby and throughout BREL remains opposed to its privatisation? It shows how little the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has to do with the work force that she is unaware of that opposition. Is the Minister further aware that the work force certainly hopes that his announcement signals a period not only of stability but prosperity, since, in the past few years, BREL has substantially suffered as a result of the Government's policies?
Does the Minister intend to take cognisance of the fact that the work force strongly believes—as it made clear to him only last week—that its past loyalty to British Rail is not being recognised in the terms of sale and agreement between the buy-out team and British Rail? It remains of the view that the new company could start at a disadvantage because of that.

Mr. Portillo: I was grateful to the hon. Lady, to her hon. Friends and to my hon. Friends who accompanied the delegation who came to see me last week. That was a useful opportunity for me to hear the concerns of the work force.
As I said on that occasion, the fact that the workers are taking with them their present contracts is a substantial guarantee to them of the terms and conditions under which they have worked and of the fact that those terms and conditions will continue. That relates to such things as terms of redundancy, travel conditions and pensions—subject to any negotiations that may take place with the new management.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that the sale is opposed in Derby. I am surprised she said that, because, on television in reply to the question
would BREL … operating as a private company … actually stand a better chance?
the hon. Lady replied:
Unfortunately, in the climate of this Government that may even be so.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that his excellent decision will be greeted with pleasure and enthusiasm by the majority of my constituents, who believe that his choice is in the best interests of the Derby works? His decision will be welcomed by those up and down the country who want to see BREL succeed in private hands and be capable of grasping all future opportunities.
Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that there is some confusion among the work force about the two matters he mentioned in his statement? Therefore, will he reiterate the fact that, at the point of sale and under the terms of sale, existing pension rights will be maintained on no less favourable terms and that travel concessions, which currently exist on British Rail, will continue?

Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I thought that I would hear another opinion from the city of Derby having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Derby, South.
The new owner has given the undertaking that the overall package for the compulsory pension scheme will be no less favourable than at present and that travel concessions are to be continued as now, subject only to renegotiation that may occur.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, since he is handing over a large package of assets to a private company, the work force wants much better guarantees than his bland assurances that the moment that BREL is sold, the work force will be able to maintain its existing terms? That is not the case.
The Minister will be aware that, in Crewe, about £7 million of taxpayers' money has gone into new machinery. If, in two years' time, we have paid for that machinery in terms of jobs, asset-stripping and the deliberate running down of BREL, I hope that there will be an urgent investigation of the Government's responsibility, given they have no commitment to the railway industry or to the future of manufacturing.

Mr. Portillo: I am surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks because we are dealing with a reputable consortium that has come in to buy the company. It is 60 per cent. in British ownership, 20 per cent. held by the management and 40 per cent. by Trafalgar House. The other 40 per cent. of the consortium is represented by one of the world's leading electrical manufacturers. There is little doubt of that grouping's commitment to BREL's future. ABB can offer BREL the most tremendous opportunities. Trafalgar House is also heavily involved in the transport business

now and is preparing to put in bids for the Manchester light railway, the Channel tunnel link, and has also made a proposal to Olympia and York for the railway from Waterloo to Docklands. I believe that there is every sign of the consortium's strongest commitment to the company.

Mr. Conal Gregory: My hon. Friend will be assured that the vast majority of the work force in York will be delighted by today's news and I am sure that its delight is shared by the majority of the work force in Crewe and at the two sites in Derby. It is a further step towards denationalisation. There will be some regret, however, that it has taken so long to get to this stage.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), I have already received representations about concessionary travel and pension rights. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will devote particular attention to those matters in the coming weeks.
May I ask for my hon. Friend's assurance—if he in turn has had it from the consortium—about employment in York and how far it will depend on the Swiss-based subsidiary? Has he received assurances that, within weeks of finalising this, Trafalgar House will not sell part of its equity to the Swiss, thereby ensuring that more than 50 per cent. of the company falls to a non-EEC engineering company?

Mr. Portillo: On pension rights, perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend and others by saying that a part of the surplus in the British Rail pension fund is intended to be transferred to the new owners, subject to the approval of the trustees of the BR pension fund.
As I said in answer to the last question, there are now such strong signs of Trafalgar House's commitment to transport that I hope that that provides reassurance. Again, I refer to remarks made by Mr. Holdstock, the managing director of BREL, as quoted in the Financial Times of last Saturday:
The link with Trafalgar House will strengthen Brel's project management, which might be important in the growing market for turnkey contracts to develop light rail systems.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I represent a community in which 10,000 people were once employed in railway engineering. Three years ago the Government reduced the work force of 3,000 to 300. The work force got to work and created the BREL maintenance depot, the only one left in Scotland.
The Minister must know that we in Scotland have had a painful experience, with so-called reputable companies coming in, taking over and sacking the work force—and it is just as painful to be sacked by a reputable employer as by a disreputable one. Surely the Minister owes it to the work force in my and other constituencies to keep a hand in this company to ensure that the asset-strippers do not move in, as they moved in three years ago in my constituency.

Mr. Portillo: If, when he talks about asset-stripping, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about property sales, I reiterate all the points I have made before about what appears to me to be the strong commitment of all the people involved in this bid. The hon. Gentleman himself makes the point that nationalisation is no guarantee of jobs. Not just in BREL, but in a whole series of different companies, nationalisation has offered no guarantee of employment. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends


know that the changing market for repair and maintenance of railway wagons and locomotives lies behind the loss of jobs. We are trying to find—and I believe we have found—a way of providing a secure future for BREL.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, which is good news for the people of Derby. When he met the unions last week, they expressed two main concerns—pensions and concessionary travel, as my hon. Friends have said. I believe that his statement goes a long way towards sorting out some of the problems and fears described in that initial meeting last week. Bearing in mind that the negotiations are still taking place, when does my hon. Friend expect the sale to be completed?

Mr. Portillo: In answer to my hon. Friend's last point, I hope that it will be a matter of weeks. It is for the European Commission to satisfy itself on the financial arrangements; for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secreary of State for Trade and Industry to take advice from the Office of Fair Trading; and for all the parties to bring the negotiations to a speedy resolution.
I recall my hon. Friend's contributions in previous statements. I am sure that he will be pleased that it is the intention of the new grouping to establish an employee share ownership plan, which I know is an especial concern of his.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the statement, and the fact that it involves the management and employees of the company, as we recommended in November 1987, when the House first examined this issue. Nevertheless, can the Minister reassure the employees and those concerned in the affected areas that the company's investment plans will be maintained and that there are no present plans for job losses? I also hope that he can tell the House that the funds realised from the sale will be reinvested in British Rail, which could very much do with such a cash injection.

Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I have observed that it has been the consistent position of his party, or parties.
At the moment, the company has about £400 million worth of orders. There are substantial new opportunities ahead, so there is everything to play for.
The proceeds of the sale are for British Rail, which can use them to reduce its indebtedness or to invest, as it thinks appropriate.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by both the workers and the management of BREL, who will now have far more control over their own business? Does he accept that any job losses of the past few years have been the result not of privatisation but of inefficiencies inherent in a state-run industry that existed solely on the basis of cosy, guaranteed, cost-plus contracts from an organisation that owned BREL?
Does my hon. Friend also accept that the only way to ensure no job losses in future is to keep the customers happy?

Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of welcome. The remarkable thing about the future of the company now is that it can compete for orders in a European market. I do not see much long-term future for a company in nationalised hands existing only on orders handed down by a single railway company in this country without access to technology from abroad.

Mr. Ken Eastham: I note the Minister's great enthusiasm when he uses the words "financial advantages". Why is he not prepared to reveal the price to the House, given that public money is invested in these companies? The taxpayers are entitled to know how their money is being used.
Can the Minister give some guarantee that if this transaction goes through there will not be asset-stripping such as took place with the royal ordnance factories—when factories were closed to sell the land off for other uses?

Mr. Portillo: I cannot talk about the price because the negotiations have not been concluded—I hope they will be shortly. I have outlined how I hope matters will proceed. I have also said how I believe that the commitment of the companies involved in this purchase is strong and clear. As it happens, in the event of any property disposals, there are clawback arrangements in the terms of the contract.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is it not up to Ministers and the House, not the European Commission, to decide whether the financial terms of the sale are acceptable or unacceptable? Can the Minister confirm that today's most welcome announcement will be the prelude to the privatisation, in whole or in part, of British Rail in the next Parliament?

Mr. Portillo: On the first point, I agree with my hon. Friend because I believe there has been a misunderstanding between us. The European Commission concerns itself with whether there has been state finance which could constitute unfair competition in the setting up of a new company.
My hon. Friend knows that the Government are certainly looking with great interest into the privatisation of British Rail as a whole, but I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has already said about that.

Dr. John Marek: Pursuing what the Minister said earlier about travel concessions and their possible negotiation, will he do what he can to ensure that any changes as a result of these negotiations are made only if they have not only the support of the new BREL management and British Rail, but of the employees? When he answers that question, will he bear in mind the fact that it is because of the Minister and the Government that BREL is being privatised?

Mr. Portillo: The workers who transfer to the new ownership take their contracts with them. The contracts clearly maintain the present terms and conditions of employment. A contract can only be subject to a renegotiation: it cannot be subject to unilateral abrogation on the part of the management. If there is to be renegotiation, it will be a mutual process between the two parties—exactly the same as might occur if the ownership were unchanged.

Mr. Tim Smith: Was a stock market flotation or, perhaps more probably, a management buy-out considered for this company? Can my hon. Friend say what effect the decision will have on some independent United Kingdom suppliers that are able to meet British Rail's requirements?

Mr. Portillo: On my hon. Friend's latter point, it was the clear view of British Rail that apart from the financial advantage of this offer there was the advantage that it would increase competition in the railway supply industry. British Rail believes that that is also an important factor. On my hon. Friend's first point, the consortium that is taking over BREL is to the extent of 20 per cent. a management buy-out and it says that it plans to have an employee share ownership plan. That will be broadly welcomed in the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: Has the Minister noted that, for a statement vital to the industrial future of Scotland, no SNP Member is present to ask questions, let alone to protect the future of industry in Scotland, which that party keeps shouting about north of the border? Will the Minister say precisely what guarantees he has received that Sprinter maintenance will continue in Glasgow, and that all other operations in Glasgow will not be subjected to the process of rationalisation that we are now used to that moves operations to the south or, indeed, abroad, thus jeopardising the 300 jobs that remain for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and those of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who does not seem to have the time to turn up occasionally?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right to say that a matter that affects the railway supply industry should be of interest to hon. Members from every part of the country. As I understand it, my statement about BREL affects only Crewe, Derby and York, because the plant that the hon. Gentleman refers to was taken out of BREL prior to the sale and now operates within British Rail. Nothing in the statement affects that.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister understand that many of my colleagues feel concerned that by not revealing the bid price offered by the consortium and Trafalgar House he has prevented Parliament from measuring whether the taxpayer is getting a fair return? Is it not true that at some stage all that information will be revealed to the Public Accounts Committee? It could be asked for by shareholders at annual general meetings of the acquiring companies and could also be published in the annual reports of the companies. Why can we not be given some indication now? Does the Minister want once again to hide these matters from Parliament because someone has picked up a £400 million order book company on the cheap?

Mr. Portillo: No. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, in due course this information will become available, not least to the Public Accounts Committee representing Parliament. I do not want to give the price now because I do not want to give the half-time score.

Mr. John Redwood: In welcoming this statement and especially my hon. Friend's two answers about employee share schemes, may I ask him whether he

can give any more information about the scope that there will be for individual employees and managers to participate in shareholdings and in profits? Does he agree that a generous scheme would be one of the best guarantees of a prosperous future for the new company?

Mr. Portillo: I am as delighted as my hon. Friend at the plan of the management to offer an employee share ownership plan. It is too early to say what the conditions of that might be, but I share my hon. Friend's wish that it should be as good and as attractive as possible, because that will be a good way to motivate the work force under the new circumstances.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Where does the Minister get his confidence in Trafalgar House? Is he not aware that Trafalgar House has an appalling record in the buy-outs in which it was involved? There is evidence of that at Scott Lithgow on the upper Clyde.
May I be nosey and ask the Minister a nice, friendly and gentle question? Has he noticed that one of the features of Government privatisation is that the Secretary of State responsible for the privatisation usually finishes up as a non-executive director of the company that buys the privatised company? In view of the Secretary of State's recent troubles, may we have a guarantee that this is not likely to happen in this case?

Mr. Portillo: I had not noticed that trend. I have already said in answer to other questions that it seems to me that Trafalgar House has a substantial interest in transport matters covering the Manchester light railway, for which it is a bidder, the Channel tunnel link and the proposal for a railway line from Waterloo to Docklands. I have also alluded to the fact that the management of BREL sees the contribution of Trafalgar House as being especially important in trying to win turnkey contracts, which can be important in the export field.

Sir David Price: For greater clarity, will my hon. Friend place in the Official Report the precise details of the works covered by these deals so that there is no doubt that maintenance works that were previously owned by BREL and that have reverted to railway ownership, such as our railway works at Eastleigh, are not covered? It is important to get clear what is and what is not covered by this deal.

Mr. Portillo: This concerns BREL (1988) Ltd., but I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is the Minister aware of acute anxiety among all the work forces involved, and not only those work forces that have been mentioned so far? They include the GEC workers in Preston, for example, who fear that this will lead to foreign control of this vital sector. Their fears are based on the fact that 40 per cent. goes to a Swiss-Swedish firm and that the rest depends largely on the good will of Trafalgar House. The Minister has said that it seems to him that Trafalgar House has a commitment. Can he tell us whether he has received from it a firm commitment that it will not simply sell and take its profit and go quickly? Can he tell us what he has done to safeguard British jobs and what steps he will take to prevent the involvement of ABB, leading to excessive imports at the expense of British products in rail traction?

Mr. Portillo: The strength of this arrangement is the combination of these works, which have substantial orders


and considerable expertise, and the much broader expertise and technology that is available through ABB. I would be repeating myself if I stated again the reason why I think that Trafalgar House is strongly committed. The hon. Lady says that she is worried about foreign ownership. She should recognise that the consortium bid is 60 per cent. British and that the alternative was a 50:50 bid.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Minister has revealed that the Government do not know the selling price of these organisations and has said that there is no point in giving the half-time score, may we assume that the Government have agreed to privatise on the basis of selling off while not being prepared to tell the country at large? Has it been sold on the cheap? Is it one of those old-fashioned Rover type deals in which the taxpayer hands over large sums of money and a small amount comes back? Can he tell us how many acres of land are involved and how many of those acres are within city centres? What guarantees have the Government received about property and asset-stripping in connection with this sale? If he is not prepared to give the answers to all these questions, including the price, we can come to only one conclusion—that it is a massive cover-up.

Mr. Portillo: It was my judgment that the House would want to know the Government's attitude to this proposed sale at the earliest opportunity. Of course it would have been possible to wait until all the negotiations were concluded before making a statement, but during that period the House would have been impatient to know the Government's attitude. It is right to tell the House the Government's view, even though at this stage there is the disadvantage of not being able to reveal the selling price or to say whether the sale will proceed because there are certain conditions that need to be fulfilled. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the offer from the consortium was clearly superior to the other offer.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the Government's record on railway matters is disgraceful? They have underfunded and under-invested in the railway system and because of that its performance is inferior to that of any other railway system. Now the Government propose to sell BREL by

private treaty to some group, and they have no guarantee that it will not be just an asset-stripping exercise or will lead at the end of the day to a weaker railway system, a lack of expertise in railway technology and an inability to invest in what, I hope, will be a good future for the industry when the Government have finally left office.

Mr. Portillo: The sale was not by private treaty but by competitive bid, as I explained. There were two bids and the superior bid won.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about investment is that, since 1983, £2 billion has been invested in the railways. In the coming five years, we intend to invest £3·5 billion. This is the biggest renewal since the transfer from steam to diesel and by the end of the decade BR will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and electrified 60 per cent. of its inter-city network and 30 per cent. of its total network.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) spoke about the concerns of the employees of GEC lest the consortium bid, if successful, led to GEC and the jobs there being frozen out, as we see with the transfer of supply to ABB. May we be informed what guarantees the Government have obtained from the BREL consortium about continuing to accept supplies from existing United Kingdom suppliers?

Mr. Portillo: Whichever bid had been accepted we would have ended up with an international solution, and that is entirely appropriate because many orders are to be won in Europe and, equally, it is important that groups have access to technology from all European sources. So that would have occurred in either case and, I believe, would have been welcomed in either case. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, because of the investment programme, the details of which I gave when answering his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), it seems likely that there will be many orders in the offing, and fortunately we shall now have a healthy and competitive situation with a number of bidders in the United Kingdom able to apply for those contracts.

Following are the premises involved in the sale:

Derby carriage works;
Derby loco works;
Crewe works;
York works;
BREL headquarters

Guildford and Woolwich Bombings

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that yesterday the Home Secretary chose to announce his decision to refer the Guildford and Woolwich case to the Court of Appeal in an eight-page written answer rather than make a statement to the House on which he could have been questioned, as happened on the previous occasion when he considered the Guildford and Woolwich and Birmingham cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I went to the Library at 3.30 yesterday afternoon to obtain a copy of that eight-page written answer. It was not available there. We then went to the Lower Press Gallery where we were immediately able to obtain a copy. In other words, it was available to the Press Gallery—whose members seemed aware of the decision four or five hours before it was announced in the House—but not in the Library.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It certainly should have been available in the Library. I say again that I deprecate the press getting information before we do here.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is surely a serious issue here in that the Home Secretary announced in advance that he was giving a written answer—to a question which was planted in the first place by one of his hon. Friends—on an important issue, thus avoiding him having to face the House on that issue. He then apparently leaked—or it was leaked by his Department—the entire contents of that reply at 10 o'clock in the morning to The London Standard newspaper and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out, it became available to Members at 4 o'clock that afternoon.
Many of us welcome the fact that the case is to be referred to the Court of Appeal. We should have liked, and still would like, an opportunity to speak directly in the House to the Home Secretary on this issue and question him about further details of it. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that such an opportunity should be made available to us?

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. As the Home Secretary is in his place and will have heard you deprecating his conduct and that of his Department, do you agree that the least he should do is to come to the Dispatch Box and give an explanation?

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the most important point is that the Home Secretary has decided that the Court of Appeal may decide this issue. Nothing that might be said in the House can make any impact on what the Court of Appeal will decide. Surely my right hon. Friend's decision should be welcomed by Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us—an open-ended debate on a Committee stage and a three-hour debate thereafter.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I came into the Chamber after the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made his comments, I have the general gist of the point.
I do not need to make an apology to the House for dealing with this matter in a written answer, partly for the reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) gave. I have no knowledge of the source of the report in The London Standard, which I saw and which I regret. My intention was that it should be dealt with in an orderly way by informing the House first.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary said that in some mysterious way these documents reached the Press Gallery without his knowledge, a situation which you deprecate, Mr. Speaker. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has nothing to say to the House about how it could have happened.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the Chamber on several occasions recently when you have deprecated the process by which it appears that written answers, and on some occasions even the contents of oral statements, have reached the press before being given to the House. I realise that when you say that you deprecate something, that is a strong rebuke to the Government that it should have happened. But that does not seem to be having any effect. Would it be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels, to take the matter a little further and get the practice stopped so that we do not find material being handed to the press before it is put through the correct channels for Members to obtain as a written or oral statement?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with the matter, please. I heard the Home Secretary say that he had no idea how it occurred. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made a sensible and helpful suggestion, and I shall certainly do as he suggested.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Secretary's comments about what appeared in the The London Standard gave me and other Opposition Members the impression that he did not know what had happened. There can be no question but that the Home Secretary answered by way of a written reply. He seemed to convey the impression that he was not sure how it got to the Press Gallery several hours before the written question was answered. If that is the case, it is important for the right hon. Gentleman to discover how that leaked information reached the press. Perhaps Bernard Ingham did it for him. If so, we should be told who is running the Home Office—Bernard Ingham or the Home Secretary. Who is running the show?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on with today's show.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have to follow an open-ended debate on a Committee stage and a three-hour debate after that. Points of order take up a great deal of time and do a grave disservice to the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He may get an advantage out of raising points of order in this way, but his hon. Friends suffer.

Mr. Mullin: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that on reflection you will accept the seriousness of this issue, which is of some public importance, as a glance at this morning's newspapers will reveal. The point I made, which the Home Secretary did not address, was that the copy, which I am holding, of the written answer was obtained by me from the Press Gallery because it was not obtainable in the Library.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I shall be discussing the matter through the usual channels. I cannot help any more than that.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Very well, Mr. Corbyn, if the hon. Gentleman must waste the time of the House.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not wasting time—remembering that this is an important issue. One of the four people concerned is a constituent of mine who has wrongly spent 14 years in prison. That is a matter of great importance, and I am glad that the case has been referred to the Court of Appeal.
If parliamentary answers are given in a written form, they are clearly the property of the House at the time they are given, which is supposed to be at the start of public business each afternoon at about 3.30. I am rather suspicious of the way in which the usual channels' operation goes on in this building. I would prefer you, Mr. Speaker, to give a clear ruling from the Chair that at 3.30 each day—or at the same time, whatever time that may be—all written answers are placed in the Library so that they are available to Members and are not deliberately leaked to the press in advance. While I accept the Home Secretary's assurance that he himself did not know that

this one had got into the hands of The London Standard, clearly his office knew that it was in the hands of the Press Gallery well in advance of being in the hands of Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Member and the House that answers to written questions should be in the Library at 3.30, and I hope that will happen in future.

BILL PRESENTED

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Jerry Wiggin, supported by Mr. Andrew Faulds, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the passing and stamping of certain weighing and measuring equipment, as being fit for use for trade, by persons other than inspectors of weights and measures: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 January, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Fuel and Energy Provision

Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home; to guarantee appliances; to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice; to prevent the unauthorised removal of fuel measuring devices; to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes.
I welcome the opportunity to bring this Bill before the House once again and I make no apology for doing so. Fuel poverty is a vital issue. Any society that likes to think itself civilised should be prepared to provide all its citizens, irrespective of their circumstances or status, with certain basics—food. shelter and warmth—which are the essentials for living.
I appreciate that the House is used to dealing with the most complex subjects and that hon. Members will leave no stone unturned in their endeavour to become well versed in those subjects. Their strong commitment motivates them, at great public expense and without hesitation, to travel to the furthest corners of the globe and to the most exotic places to slake their thirst for knowledge and understanding.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the subject of my Bill, important as it is, is a simple matter and that hon. Members can obtain the most comprehensive understanding of the realities of fuel poverty by the simplest expedient at no cost to the public; in fact, it would result in financial savings.
So that hon. Members can understand the extreme cold that their poorest constituents experience, I am sure that they would agree to the heating in the Chamber being turned off and left off for 24 hours or, better still, a week or a month. That would equip the House to understand the meaning of cold—cold which cannot be magicked away by the empty platitudes and publicity campaigns that have characterised the Government's response to the issue. It cannot be magicked away by advice from Ministers with a deranged lack of reality.
The cold to which I refer does not belong on a Christmas card. It cannot be discovered in a momentary immersion in icy water after a massage or a hot sauna. It cannot be experienced when the hand is plunged into an ice bucket to grip the neck of a champagne bottle. The cold to which I refer is a public fact and the responsibility for ensuring that people do not suffer as a result of it rests with the House. That responsibility cannot be privatised. That is why I am prepared to bring this Bill before the House at any and every opportunity, year in and year out, if necessary.
It is necessary to be relentless in pursuing this matter because the cold is a cruel, relentless, remorseless enemy, bringing in its wake misery, illness and death. But those evils are not shared equally in our society. The people who suffer most are the poor, the single-parent families, the unemployed and their families, the disadvantaged, those on low incomes, those who are discriminated against, those who are disabled or ill and, most important, the elderly—the people least able to endure extremes of temperature which would be unacceptable in this House.
Ninety-five per cent. of elderly people live in their own homes. For our elderly citizens, those homes, which were once full of joy, were shared with husbands or wives and

resounded to the laughter of children, can, over the course of the years, or even months or days, become prisons where the warder is the cold. The cold regulates the time of going to bed and the time of rising, denies people the energy needed to prepare food, restricts the choice of what they can buy and restricts their ability to answer the door. It shuts them in a cell where their voice cannot be heard and where the world does not choose to look—a cell which can become a coffin.
On bright, clear winter days, when the sun is shining on the windows, illuminating Jack Frost's sparkling handiwork, it is hard to imagine that behind the panes of glass in any town or any village a human being may he freezing to death. Hypothermia is difficult to diagnose and there is evidence that doctors sometimes seem reluctant to put it on the death certificate, so the number of deaths directly attributable to the cold is often understated. For 1981 and 1983 the chief medical statistician found that fewer than three out of every four hypothermia deaths in hospital appeared on death certificates.
However, even if we cannot always rely on the information provided by death certificates to give a clear indicator that cold weather was responsible for any particular death, we can easily get a clear idea of the scale of the overall problem in this country. It is not merely a crisis or an epidemic; it is a disaster. The additional number of winter deaths over the past five years has averaged out at 37,740. It is not enough to sit back and say, "Well, of course, it is inevitable that more old people will die in winter—it is a fact of nature and cannot be avoided." If that is so, why is the problem so much greater in Britain than in other countries? A comparison has shown that, in February, whereas the monthly increase in winter mortalities was 24 per cent. in England and Wales and 19 per cent. in Scotland, the equivalent figure for Sweden—a country of civilised standards, not noted for the warmth of its climate—was 6 per cent.
However, death from hypothermia itself represents only a small proportion of deaths in which the cold is a major contributory factor in the progress of other illnesses. For old people suffering from arthritis, rheumatism, with weak hearts and poor circulation, brittle bones and fragile constitutions, the cold gives those conditions a helping hand. Then there is the will to live and the will to get better. Can anything be more bleak and desolate than huddling in front of a single bar of an electric fire or a single gas radiant in the depth of winter out of mortal dread of the bill that will land on the mat one day?
What about the unemployed? Statistic after statistic has confirmed the link between ill health and unemployment. We know that people who, through no fault of their own, become unemployed are subject to severe depression. For those people, the winter cold is an ever-present qualification of their status. Sadly, Government policies are exacerbating the problems. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing, as the interests of the already wealthy are advanced at the expense of the already poor. The Government have funded tax cuts by selling off industries that belonged to this country. Consequently, the people at the bottom of the economic spectrum—the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled—who have all suffered as a result of recent social security changes must subsidise cut-price bargains for the City and an economic policy that has flooded the country with imports.
When fuel prices are compared with the remaining non-fuel items in the retail prices index, we see that the cost


of domestic fuel has risen by 32 per cent. in real terms since 1970 despite the exploitation of oil and gas resources in the North sea. With the privatisation of the electricity industry, the Government will make things even worse for people on low incomes. Electricity prices increased by 9 per cent. last year and are set to go up a further 6 per cent. this April. Taken together, that will mean that the industry will have gained a further £15 billion from household bills. As a consequence, the cost to the consumer is growing faster in Britain than anywhere else and many people, once again in the low-income groups, including single-parent families and elderly people, are doubly disadvantaged. Their homes, poorly insulated and with ill-fitting windows and doors, cannot hold the heat. They cannot afford to install efficient, modern appliances to take advantage of off-peak rates. In other words, they are shut out from the developments in technology. As a result, those people pay higher bills for less warmth. The end result is an increase in the number of disconnections.
With privatisation both because of price increases and because of the policy that private companies will adopt, the number of disconnections will be greater than under nationalisation. There is no doubt about that. In the two years since gas privatisation, gas disconnections have risen by 25 per cent. and National Gas Consumers Council figures show that 62,000 households were cut off in 1987–88. That is double the rate for 1983. During the same period—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has been speaking for 10 minutes and should begin to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Hughes: Fuel poverty and the material means to have fuel for warmth is the responsibility of every person in this country. William Beveridge said:
We should regard want, squalor, disease and ignorance as common enemies of all of us—not as enemies with which each individual can seek a separate peace, escaping himself to personal prosperity while leaving his fellows in their clutches. That is the meaning of social conscience—that one should refuse to make a peace with social evil.
We can afford to ensure that people do not go cold—it is simply a question of priorities. The Bill is a definition of the highest priority.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Alan Meale, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Tam Dalyell and Mr. Harry Barnes.

FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION

Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home; to guarantee appliances; to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice; to prevent the unauthorised removal of fuel measuring devices; to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 February and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — Security Service Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress 16 January]

Clause 1

THE SECURITY SERVICE

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'be' to end of line 11 and insert
'to protect against threats to national security'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 74, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'in particular'.
No. 75, in page 1, line 10, after 'actions', insert
'which threaten the safety or well-being of the state and which are'.
No. 76, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'actions' to end of line 11 and insert
'which would overthrow or contemplate overthrow of government by unlawful means'.
No. 77, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'actions' to end of line 11 and insert
'which are calculated to overthrow parliamentary democracy'.
No. 81, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'or undermine'.
No. 39, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'industrial'.
No. 90, in page 1, line 11, after 'industrial', insert 'chemical'.
No 47, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
'(2A) "Threats to national security" means—

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against the United Kingdom or is detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage;
(b) the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person;
(c) activities within or relating to the United Kingdom directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within the United Kingdom or a foreign state; and
(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of parliamentary democracy,
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above;'.
No. 78, in page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
No. 40, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(4) All members of the Service shall take an oath to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy'.
No. 82, in Clause 2, page 1, line 25, at end insert
'any individual, any company or any organisation'.
New clause4—Right of protest, advocacy or dissent—
'Nothing shall be done under this Act which undermines the right of protest, advocacy or dissent.'.

Mr. Shepherd: Amendments Nos. 46 and 47, read together, deal with the definition of national security. Clause 1(2) of the Bill defines the function of the service. Amendment No. 46 should be read in conjunction with amendment No. 47 which defines the threats to national security. In defining national security, the Government


have given the essential elements of the matters that worry us all. New clause 4 attempts to make those matters more specific. The mandate to the service should be as clear as possible. We recognise the difficulty involved in that because there are sometimes fine lines of judgment as to whether certain elements fall within the remit of the Security Service. There are also concerns about the intrusiveness that could be a feature of the service if it is not properly defined. These amendments link up with those of other hon. Members and I shall try to explain their purpose.
The first category of threats to national security involves espionage and sabotage and is defined in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 47. It is in line with what the Government propose. It refers to
espionage or sabotage that is against the United Kingdom or is detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage".
That is a fairly conventional understanding of what is meant by treason.
The second category is defined in paragraph (b) as
the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person".
That means any foreign interference in our democratic processes which is calculated to affect those processes. It also means that any foreign interference may prejudice the conclusions we may reach during our discussion on such matters.
The third category is defined in paragraph (c) as
activities within or relating to the United Kingdom directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within the United Kingdom or a foreign state".
We link this with paragraph (d). We hope that our amendments are helpful to the Government in their definition of threats to national security.
Terrorism is a blight. It is a way in which politically motivated individuals try to subvert our normal democratic processes in an attempt to bring about a result that cannot be brought about through argument or through our normal electoral process. Espionage and sabotage are not the only forms of foreign activities that should be monitored and investigated. Foreign Governments and political organisations may, in a clandestine way, try to interfere in British political life. The Russians call that "active measures" and the Americans call it "covert action". The common link is that deception is an essential feature.
The Australians have defined foreign interference in the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. The definition is:
clandestine or deceptive action taken by or on behalf of a foreign power to promote the interests of that power.
Hon. Members supporting the amendments believe that it is appropriate for the intelligence services to give us advance warning so as to place the Government of the day in a position to counter such activities.
Our democratic process requires political objectives to be pursued through public discussion, parliamentary debate and lawful representation. That process is jeopardised when groups attempt to gain their political objectives by threatening or carrying out acts of violence or terrorism. That would be a perversion of our democratic process and control of such activities is a vital part of the remit of the Security Service.
Clause 1(2) defines activities directed or intended ultimately to lead to the overthrow or destruction of parliamentary democracy. I accept that there are difficulties, but I am concerned about the Government's definition in the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary of State will mention it. Clause 1(2) states that we should protect national security from
the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine democracy by political…means.
What do the Government mean by their drafting of that clause?

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman has again put his finger on the problems involved because the Bill is highly subjective. If a Socialist Government elected by parliamentary means wanted to introduce widespread Socialism, root and branch, throughout the society, thereby overturning capitalism, would that come within the parameters of clause 1(2)?

Mr. Shepherd: There is always a grave problem in distinguishing between what is legitimate and what is illegitimate. Subsection (2A)(d) of amendment No. 47 mentions
the destruction or overthrow … of parliamentary democracy
and adds the important caveat which we consider should be included in the legislative framework that the definition
does not include lawful advocacy".
If, for example, a political party were advocating through the House of Commons a Socialist system, I would oppose it, but it would be within the framework of our parliamentary democracy. Our caveat is that the definition
does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above".
5 pm
The definition is important because it provides a marker. When people are commissioned to do a job, greater clarity of their remit is obviously to their advantage, and to their advantage, and to the advantage of the Ministers responsible for directing the services, in that the benchmark is as clear as possible. The legislatures of Australia, New Zealand and Canada have considered that concept. Our definition covers the word "subversion" which is not used in the Bill. We are trying to make the difficult decision as to what constitutes subversion. That problem exercises the mind because there is such a narrow line. If a party such as the Communist party advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat and a non-parliamentary system, because the dictatorship of the proletariat is directed by the vanguard, one has the dilemma that the Communist party is dedicated to the overthrow of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Communist party in Britain and in most countries has not advocated the dictatorship of the proletariat for a long time. Indeed, it no longer accepts that concept.

Mr. Tony Benn: It is in favour of an electoral pact.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend is quite right. The Communist party is in favour of an electoral pact. If one reads the documents which argue for the dictatorship of the proletariat, first by Marx and later by Lenin—never


mind Stalin, who created a dictatorship over the proletariat—it is clear that they were arguing for a greater extension of democracy by the mass of workers, which they regarded as a dictatorship of the majority over the minority. I am arguing about what we mean by philosophical argument. Lord Hailsham talks about the parliamentary dictatorship of the majority, but no one would suggest that Lord Hailsham wants to overthrow parliamentary democracy. He simply has a rather funny view of it. Those who argue for the dictatorship of the proletariat have an equally funny view of it, but those arguments do not mean that parliamentary democracy is being undermined. Such people may be wrong, but it does not follow that they are subversive simply because they put forward such arguments.

Mr. Shepherd: I am not sure what to make of that intervention. My memories are seared by Lenin's captivating little book entitled, "What is to be done?" If one views that as a treatise of democratic persuasion in the context of a liberal democracy, one has to reject the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Tony Banks: It was not written in the context of a liberal democracy. That is the whole point.

Mr. Shepherd: Nor does it argue for a liberal democracy.
I mentioned the Communist party to show that there is a difficult area in defining what is supportive of a liberal democracy. Under our constitutional arrangements, we can change the political process through the House of Commons accountable to the electorate through a definable democratic process. I consider that the fundamental purpose of the Security Service is to defend our liberal democracy. It exists so that we shall not be gainsaid by terrorists exploding bombs and we shall not change public policy in this country determined by the electorate because agents of a foreign power are trying to subvert our democratic processes. We are trying to make those definitions which we accept are difficult and would create difficulties for any Government.
The purpose of the amendment and the caveat is to reflect on the approach of other countries. A comparative approach can serve us well in examining why such matters cause anxiety in Britain and in other countries. Because Security Service agents have gone on the record or gone public on television, all hon. Members are aware that the Security Service has tapped telephones, I assume with a warrant. We have learnt that they have tapped the telephones of trade union leaders and members of CND. In all our constituencies, perfectly loyal fellow citizens are members of trade unions and members of CND. Whether one agrees with their particular objectives or not, we do not doubt—and I am sure that the security services do not doubt—that they are genuine, legitimate political activities.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself.

Mr. Shepherd: As the hon. Gentleman says, I am speaking for myself, but that is how I would analyse the position. If there was telephone tapping, what mandate

enabled Security Service officials to interpret their duties or responsibilities to a liberal democracy as being to interfere with the privacy of perfectly loyal citizens?

Mr. Banks: The fact that they do not have the same liberal instincts and values as the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman were in charge of the Security Service, the Opposition would be a damned sight more satisfied than we are at present. That is the problem. Clause 1 is all about subjective judgments and party political prejudices. That is why it is so dangerous.

Mr. Shepherd: That is why we have moved an amendment which tries to define the appropriate mandate which best expresses the will of the House as appropriate to or consonant with democratic behaviour.
Despite what I read, in my experience the Security Service is essentially benign. But in all large organisations there will be rogue elephants. I accept the observation from within and without the Security Service that some officials suffer from sensory deprivation and over a period of time they lose sight of the objectives of their job. That is why the amendments seek to make the objectives as clear as possible. That is just one link in the chain. Oversight, which we discussed yesterday, is another link in the chain, but the mandate is clear. It allows for legitimate dissent so that any security officer or director-general preparing a warrant, for example, is aware that the warrant has to comply with the mandate, and every time there is reference to his lines of responsibility he comes upon the concept in statute. That is the requirement in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, but it does not cover lawful advocacy, protest and dissent unless carried on in conjuction with the criminal activities of terrorists and so on.
I put in the caveat because of that anxious definition. I raised the objectives of the Communist party as I understood them—but I stand corrected—because the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat does not encompass what I understand to be the role of this Chamber and our ability every four years to change the Government and elect a government of our own choice. That was the purpose of the amendment.
My concern is that we have a court looking over our shoulders. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has already trawled through some of this landscape in the important case of Leander v. Sweden in 1987 in which the court's decision stated that to justify any interference with a person's right of privacy on the grounds of national security it was necessary to give
an adequate indication of the scope and manner of the exercise of the discretion conferred on the responsible authorities to collect, record and release information".
It continued:
The law has to be sufficiently clear in its terms to give ordinary citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which the public authorities are empowered to resort to secret and potentially dangerous interference with private life.
The anxiety felt by several supporters of the amendments is that the clause as drafted is subject to broader interpretation than is appropriate and that it will bring us before the European Court of Human Rights. I am always nervous of that risk because it may be thought that that legislation embodies our perception of what is appropriate and honourable.
I do not wish to be entirely negative, but the Government's proposals do not accord even with the old Maxwell Fyfe definitions and limiting clauses, and are not


as broad. The Maxwell Fyfe provisions are better directed, and it would have been better if the Government had chosen to incorporate them. In New Zealand, provision is conditional. The Maxwell Fyfe directive imposes limitations in paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 states:
It is essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence, and nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community, or with any other matter than the Defence of the Realm as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, "And a lot of good that did us—the Government can write whatever mandates, directions or instructions they like, but they have been circumvented." One is cautious on that point, but if one is chasing a fox, sometimes one gets carried away. I make no more of the point than that.
We are trying to construct a framework which, in association with other amendments concerning oversight, reviews, and the issuing of warrants, will provide proper direction to, and control over, the Security Service, and will give confidence to the public that the Security Service is working in the interests of us all, and to Ministers that the beast that they are riding is a kind and gentle one in its attitude to democracy and is not subversive.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I and my hon. Friends support the amendments described by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and I shall address several others dealing with cognate points, but which are different in their emphasis and drafting, and in some cases deal with other matters entirely.
I recognise that a number of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) concern problems that are dealt with also in the amendments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but in a different way—perhaps being closer to the language of the Bill. Our amendments are offered as an alternative. The exercise in which we are engaged this afternoon is essentially constructive, and we are trying to ensure that the Security Service's mandate is clearly defined in a way that meets the concern that it shall not be engaged in supervising political activities that do not constitute a threat to the state.
As to amendment No. 46, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills particularly addressed, I agree with the reasoning behind it. which is based on good foreign experience—particularly that of Australia. Amendment No. 74 is designed to probe why the Government have used in clause 1(2) the words "in particular" and gives examples of the circumstances in which the Security Service can operate. By its use of the words "in particular", the subsection suggests that the service's function shall be protection of national security in ways other than those that it subsequently specifies. One questions whether inclusion of the words "in particular" broadens the scope of the service's functions so wide as to damage the confinement of the subsequent definitions. I am not clear why the subsequent definitions are given if the scope of the service is intended to be as wide as it will be if they are excluded. I trust that I make myself obscure.
5.15 pm
Amendment No. 75 is offered as an alternative to amendment No. 46, and inserts in clause 1(2), after the word "actions",

which threaten the safety or well-being of the state and which are.
Its purpose is to deal specifically with concerns already expressed in speeches and in interventions that the Security Service could, as the clause is drafted, involve itself with actions that are
intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political … means.
That aspect was squarely addressed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which drew attention to the definition of subversion of Lord Harris of Greenwich in February 1975, and accepted its appropriateness, arguing that it is essential
that both limbs of the definition shall apply before an activity can properly be regarded as subversive. Both limbs refer to activities that are defined in the guidelines as threatening the safety or well-being of the state and which are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy.
Clause 1(2) as drafted leaves us without both limbs being encompassed in the clause. The Home Secretary may hold another view, but it is a matter of drafting and I hope his intention is to ensure that both limbs are incorporated. As I construe the clause, there is an invitation to the Security Service to supervise or investigate by means authorised by warrant
actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political … means",
which is unacceptable.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman supports a point that I made in an earlier intervention. The argument becomes clearer if we substitute the word "capitalism" for the term "parliamentary democracy". I do not believe that the majority of Conservative Members believe in parliamentary democracy. They go along with it for just as long as it supports capitalism. If we substitute "capitalism", we shall really know what the clause means to achieve. I am one of those who wants to undermine capitalism by political means. That is why I am a Labour Member of Parliament.

Mr. Maclennan: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that route, which I have no doubt that he will wish to develop in a subsequent intervention.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also dealt with all the "legs" of amendment No. 47, which sets out the definitions of circumstances in which it is right for the Security Service to exercise its functions. I agree particularly with what he called the caveat clause at the end, which I consider essential.
I regard amendment No. 78 as, to some extent, a probe, but it is an important amendment none the less. I am glad of the support that it has received from some Labour Members. The amendment seeks to delete subsection (3), which, rather oddly, provides that
It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
That is a very wide provision, and it is not at all clear what is meant by
the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
The subsection seems to allow the Security Service to be involved in the oversight of many matters that have certainly not been in its purview before, and to open the door very wide for its intervention in matters that do not threaten the security of the state. I should like to hear from the Home Secretary why the subsection has been included, what kind of activities he has it in mind for the service to


consider and why it should be involved. No doubt the House will wish to consider what he says before reaching a further view, and no doubt consideration will also have to be given in the other place.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am pleased to support the amendments so ably spoken to in the first instance by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I also support—with one or two queries and qualifications—those tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
We are talking here about the definitions of the functions of the Security Service. I think that it is common ground that we need as clear as possible a definition in the interests of a strong and effective Security Service, and also in the interests of building public trust in that service. On the face of it, the definitions in clause 1 look reasonably convincing. I think that they can be improved, but the notion that we need a Security Service to protect national security from espionage, terrorism, sabotage and the overthrow of parliamentary democracy is, at the very least, not a bad shot at defining the functions that our citizens expect a Security Service to carry out.
Is my right hon. Friend entirely confident, however, that those definitions are true and accurate? I can point to at least three instances in which the Security Service has, in the recent past, seemed to operate in areas of activity beyond those defined in the clause. For example, it is common knowledge that the service is from time to time engaged in what are known as "leak investigation procedures", when awkward pieces of information are leaked to journalists and others in the form of documents.
I remember being involved nearly 20 years ago in a court case which had nothing whatever to do with national security, let alone espionage, sabotage or terrorism. Nevertheless, not only were MI5 officers involved; when the editor of the Sunday Telegraph came to be tried at the Old Bailey it was reported in the press that the director-general of the Security Service sat in court for two or three days listening to the evidence and the barristers' arguments. There was no question of any of the functions covered by the Bill being involved in that case. It is, I think, possible to point to a good many subsequent journalistic cases in which MI5 has been involved in leak procedure investigations which have been way beyond the scope of the Bill. Is my right hon. Friend confident that the Bill will stop the previous activity of MI5?

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but surely most leak inquiries have been initiated by Ministers.

Mr. Aitken: I do not think that we can blame the Security Service if in the past it has been instructed to carry out certain functions.

Mr. Banks: That is precisely my point. In this instance the service should not be blamed because it is acting on the instructions of politicians. The politicians should not, perhaps, have given the service those instructions, but it was only carrying out orders.

Mr. Aitken: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps, indeed, the definitions in the Bill are a salutary reminder not only to the Security Service but to its political masters.

Mr. Ray Whitney: May I make a point about the activities of the Security Service in days gone by, and in particular my hon. Friend's brush with the authorities, to which he referred? The clause refers to
the protection of national security".
Was not the release of a document labelled "confidential", in which my hon. Friend was involved—it may or may not have been classified correctly; that is a different argument—carried out without authorisation, as far as the authorities were concerned? That was an action in protection of national security. Is not that case covered?

Mr. Aitken: I do not really have to argue the case with my hon. Friend, because the prosecuting counsel—whose words I recall vividly to this day—said in his opening speech at the Old Bailey, "Members of the jury, national security is not involved in this case." He was absolutely right to say that, because there was no question of anything other than the embarrassment of the Foreign Office and, perhaps, difficulties for our diplomatic relations. I think that a good many such journalistic inquiries could be stretched into the area of national security only by the most vivid leaps and arabesques of febrile imaginations. Here, surely, we can point to one past function of the Security Service which ought to be knocked out by the Bill.
There is another area of MI5's activity which, in the past at least, has been without the definitions in clause 1. The Security Service has been involved in investigating organisations that could be said to be critical of, and perhaps hostile to, the policies of the Government of the day. I am thinking of, for example, the investigations into the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It is, I believe, common knowledge that there was considerable soul-searching in the Security Service before it embarked on those investigations, but it was nevertheless instructed to do so.
There should also have been soul-searching before the Security Service investigated the National Council for Civil Liberties. The notion that such people as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Miss Patricia Hewitt were in some way involved in espionage, terrorism, sabotage or national security is too ridiculous to be taken seriously. Yet we know that those organisations were investigated by MI5.

Mr. David Winnick: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that of course it was ridiculous, but we have had absolutely no reason or justification given, except by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) who said the National Council for Civil Liberties had been influenced by Communists, as perhaps it had been over 30 years ago. Is it not a fact that in the absence of any kind of parliamentary scrutiny all we get is the Minister of State responding to the Second Reading debate and saying he cannot possibly go into operational details?

Mr. Aitken: I do not want to go over yesterday's debate again today, but I do think that amendment No. 47, which is the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the


Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, is extremely well drafted, because if it was in the Bill it would allow MI5 to investigate such organisations, provided they really were a threat to national security, but with the very important rider that any such activities being investigated must not of course include
lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above",
and they basically cover espionage, sabotage, and so on.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Is it not the case that very often the Security Service may receive information from reliable, or perhaps unreliable sources? I mentioned yesterday a boastful conversation between two suspected KGB officers, the implication being that there was some kind of contact with a particular organisation. Is it not therefore the responsibility of the Security Service to make investigations and not to continue surveillance for ever and a day. but legitimately to look at a particular organisation or a particular individual where allegations have been made, and then perhaps to clear that person? Surely we cannot limit the role of the Security Service to at least conducting that preliminary investigation.

Mr. Aitken: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and I think the answer is really this. Of course we cannot blame the Security Service for chasing after what it believes to be a genuine scent for one reason or another, but at least amendment No. 47 will stop it running after a lot of false scents because it will have to remember not just what a rumour about a contact may be but its duty to make sure that the organisation concerned is not just involved in lawful advocacy, lawful dissent. So it is a good clause and a good amendment to have on the statute book.
May I now turn to a third area in which I believe MI5 tread from time to time, which again seems to be outside the terms of this Bill. I understand that the director general of the Security Service from time to time advises Ministers, and advises in particular the Prime Minister, on matters which could loosely be called security matters but are not absolutely security matters involving terrorism, sabotage, and the undermining of parliamentary democracy. For instance, I am told that the director general of the Security Service of the day regularly advises an incoming Prime Minister after an election if, in the view of the Security Service, there are any candidates around who might be considered for ministerial office who could constitute a security risk. This has certainly been true in the past, as we know, from memoirs about advice given to former Prime Minister Lord Wilson. Indeed, there was the rather hilarious case when he was advised not to continue the ministerial career of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). This turned out to be a confusion between a David Owen and a Will Owen.

Mr. Tony Banks: There was another case, of course. Harold Wilson was given advice by the security services not to appoint Judith Hart, now Baroness Hart, because the security service had confused two Harts, one of whom was a member of the Communist party named Tudor Hart. The fact is that mistakes can be made, but of course for those who are trying to climb up the greasy pole in this place they could be fatal in political terms.

Mr. Aitken: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and behind it, of course, lies the important argument in this debate that any such advice, however well-meaning it may

be, is advice which falls outside the terms of the Bill's definition of the functions of the Security Service. Just in case Labour Members think that these kinds of mistakes are totally confined to their side of the House and to Labour Prime Ministers, they may be interested to know that I was told—I believe reliably—that just after the 1979 general election no fewer than six parliamentary colleagues from these Benches were fingered by MI5 as being in some way not quite suitable for office. I cannot believe they were all saboteurs or terrorists, or indeed that they were trying to undermine parliamentary democracy—the very process that sent them to Westminster.

Mr. Allason: I have no role to defend the Security Service, but it seems to me that in the cases of Hart and Owen it was not necessarily the Security Service that made a mistake. Is it not the case that Will Owen was in fact prosecuted? He was acquitted, but he subsequently admitted to having conducted espionage. Similarly, with the case of Mrs. Hart, there were two Mrs. Harts; one, Mrs. Jenifer Hart, who had been in touch with Soviet intelligence officers, and a second, Mrs. Tudor Hart, who was mentioned.
The point I am making is this: it has been assumed by the House that the blunder or error in mistaking these names or confusing these identities was a mistake made on the part of the Security Service, and that is not my information.

Mr. Tony Banks: One was a politician trying to be a Minister.

Mr. Aitken: I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with the Security Service, if that is its defined role in law, advising Ministers or the Prime Minister that it has good grounds for believing that X or Y inside or outside this House is a security risk. The point is that these functions are not in this Bill at all. The only people they should be fingering in this way are terrorists, saboteurs, or those who are involved in espionage or threats to national security. That is a very different category from the kinds of activities I am getting at.
My serious question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is this: is the remit of the Security Service really as narrow today as clause 1 in its present form says it is? In the past I think I have given enough indications to suggest there are areas where MI5 is operating which are outside the narrow areas of definition of this Bill, and I really do commend amendment No. 47 to my right hon. Friend. I think it would certainly provide a far better definition.
I now turn to amendment 78, which is the one tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, which is to knock out completely subsection (3), which refers to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom outside the British Isles. I want to know why MI5 should be involved in this activity at all. Surely activity outside the British islands is for the Secret Intelligence Service. Why is our domestic Security Service suddenly beng sent out to monitor the gnomes of Zurich who are speculating against sterling? I cannot understand this clause and what it is getting at.
There may be times when it is necessary to protect against threats to the well-being of the United Kingdom. For example, I hope the Security Service was on the ball when Mr. Arthur Scargill went to see Mr. Gaddafi to try to get financial assistance for what definitely was an


attempt to overthrow parliamentary democracy. Nevertheless, I have difficulty in understanding why the domestic Security Service is being dragged into activity outside these islands.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about amendment No. 90, which stands in my name, which attempts to strengthen the security services by giving them statutory authority over a very new and frightening area of terrorism, the threat posed to our national security by chemical agents such as poisons and nerve gases.
Until the recent Iran-Iraq war there was a comfortable assumption held by many experts to the effect that the moral obloquy of chemical and poison gas warfare could somehow preserve an uneasy international truce in this area of weaponry. But that assumption was shattered by the use of mustard gas in the Iran-Iraq war and, in particular, by the lethal gassing of civilian Kurds in March and August 1988. Soon after that terrible event President-elect Bush made an eloquent comment on the outrage that many would echo when he said:
I thought we had relegated the horrors of chemical warfare to the history books. I thought we had banished for ever what we all saw only a few months ago—a mother trying to protect her child, waving her arms against the invisible winds of death.
That vivid phrase,
the invisible winds of death
may be the coming horror in tomorrow's evil world of terrorist outrages. Evidence is mounting that several nations are now starting to manufacture, or are planning to manufacture, chemical agents and nerve gases for use by terrorist agents.
The world has now been alerted to the Gaddafi plant at Rabta, 40 miles south of Tripoli, which, in the view of western intelligence agencies, well-supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's testimony, is certainly not a pharmaceutical plant for peaceful commercial purposes. It is highly unlikely that any such plant would be surrounded by anti-aircraft guns and missiles.
We are not just dealing with the possibility of Colonel Gaddafi supplying chemical agents to the IRA—not unlikely in view of his track record in supplying explosives to those terrorists. Other nations with terrorist forces operating in the twilight zone of international outlawry are now in, or getting into, the chemical weapons manufacturing business. Those nations include Syria, Cuba and North Korea.
If chemical weaponry is on the march, how well prepared is our Security Service to deal with it? I accept that some uses of those chemical agents and weapons may come well outside the Security Service's remit. For example, it would be for the defence forces to counter obvious attacks such as the firing of missiles at Britain armed with biological warheads.
But what about more subtle moves to overthrow or subvert Britain by chemical agents? There is no need for terrorists to bomb the Grand hotel at Brighton if the entire sleeping Cabinet could be wiped out by dropping nerve agent pellets into the air conditioning system. One blast of an aerosol can containing lethal germs such as Dengue fever into a crowded auditorium could debilitate and ultimately kill half a Government. Our parliamentary democracy could be overthrown in that way or by

dropping drugs such as LSD into a city water supply causing debilitating havoc. Horrific though those Strangelovian ideas may seem, it is worth spending a moment talking about them because there is now little doubt among specialists that some are in the planning and preparation stage by tomorrow's terrorists.

Mr. Tony Banks: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is it not also a fact that much, if not all, of the expertise for manufacturing such evil weapons is coming from the west? The technology is being exported by countries such as Western Germany, the United States and Britain. It was appalling to hear that someone could buy such weapons in some sort of market. I accept that it was not a legitimate market, but somehow they were available for sale. Perhaps the Security Service should speed up its activities in some commercial areas where so much expertise is clearly being made available to countries that want to manufacture their own gas weapons.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is right. I agree completely. I am arguing that the Security Service needs authority and power to look at this horrific new area of the expansion of terrorism. I take his point that getting to the supply line, which may well be in a western country such as ours, is vital.
How well prepared is the Security Service to deal with that potential problem? It is not sufficiently authorised by the Bill. Chemical terrorism may not necessarily be violent or industrial, certainly not in the preparatory stages. However, the preparedness of the Security Service is almost more important than the authority being given by the Bill. For example, I wonder how many MI5 officers have degrees in chemistry or pharmacology. How many have any training in counter-terrorism on chemical weapons? The precedents are not encouraging. The only reference to MI5's chemical knowledge that I have been able to trace was, as so often in the past, a somewhat comic opera one, when MI5 decided that Hugh Gaitskell had been murdered by Soviet agents using a chemical formula. MI5's response was to send a former Army signals officer to talk to the British Medical Association. That is not the kind of specialist knowledge and expertise that is necessary in today's world. We need specialisation.
The matter of supplies is vital. A quotation from George Shultz bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). In The Wall Street Journal on 3 January he was quoted as saying:
The Europeans can still turn this thing off by denying the Libyans equipment and chemical agents and precursors.
The Security Service needs the legal authority and professional capacity to turn off chemical terrorism at the supply line stage, the subversion stage and the attack stage. If anybody in Britain is selling such equipment—medium to low-technology stuff—the clause does not cover it. The word "chemical" needs to be in the Bill. I hope that the House does not think that I am guilty of futuristic scaremongering. If we can include this amendment in the Bill, it will give the Security Service a new professionalism and give a message to some of our allies, particularly the United States, that we are seriously worried about this issue.

Mr. Benn: The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who


should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word "security".
The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?
What is it about the Security Service's political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces' political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.
If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.
The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.
Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to
the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person".
That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.
It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver's television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain's armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.
The concept of the "enemy within" is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the "enemy within" became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.
I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright's story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.

Mr. Allason: I do not want the case of Cathy Massiter to be misrepresented or misinterpreted. Was it not the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Secretary of State for Defence, requested information from the Security Service relating to


CND and that the Security Service—quite rightly—declined to give any classified information? There was a disagreement and thereafter the Security Service agreed to supply information about CND to the section in the Ministry of Defence that had been set up to combat it, but only if the information came from open sources. The Security Service acted properly in declining to supply any classified information, and that was the judgment of the person who subsequently investigated Cathy Massiter's allegations, which were then dismissed.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.
I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, "Don't go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service." One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people's democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.

Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend will probably not remember an incident that took place in the 1960s when he succeeded Frank Cousins as Minister of Technology. I brought it to his notice that somebody who wanted to work in a rather junior capacity in the Civil Service had apparently been refused a job, not because she was a member of the Labour party but because her father had been born abroad. Like many others, he had come here from Tsarist Russia before 1917, for pretty obvious reasons. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intervened or not, but I am glad to say that that person eventually received an offer of employment.

6 pm

Mr. Benn: That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members' research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?

Mr. Tony Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Benn: I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, "What is parliamentary democracy?" It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying
Why does treason never prosper?
Here's the reason:
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.
Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the


sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.
Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.
In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.
The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.

Mr. Allason: The second group of amendments is important, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for raising these matters. I am concerned at some of the myths and legends mentioned by the Opposition. Perhaps I may clarify. It is certainly not their fault—it is not even the fault of the Security Service—that there is so much secrecy and mythology surrounding MI5. Many years ago, when I started my research I visited a retired director-general of the Security Service who was apparently terribly reluctant even to tell me the three functions of the Security Service at the time—counter-espionage, counter-sabotage and

counter-subversion. The role of the Security Service and its functions have been defined only twice—first, in the Maxwell Fyfe directive, which was secret and was not disclosed until the Denning report, and, secondly, in the evidence put before Lord Franks.
It is curious to note that people have not noticed the metamorphosis that has taken place in the intervening years. Counter-terrorism is to be included in the Bill. Counter-terrorism is a very important, very specific and very professional activity and it has never been an activity in which the Security Service has been involved. Counter-terrorism has traditionally been left to special branch and the anti-terrorist squad. I do not argue that the acquisition of information relating to terrorism should not be gathered by the Security Service but the House should be mindful of the change that is taking place. Surely the role of the Security Service is simply to gather information and supply that information to the relevant quarters. Its objective is often to obtain a conviction in the courts, but traditionally the Security Service has not been able to fulfil the role of supplying witnesses and that is why it has not indulged in counter-terrorism in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South made several other points about the new uses of the Security Service. One of them leaves me feeling very anxious. My humble view is that the business of leak inquiries is in direct contravention of the Maxwell Fyfe directive. A short time ago a document was leaked from the Department of Health and Social Security. It seems that if the Government leak a document it is all right, whereas if someone else leaks it it is not. Surely such leaks cannot be described as affecting national security or involve the defence of the realm. It never occurred to me that the Security Service would be involved in the investigation. I was appalled to read in the newspaper the name of the "Cabinet official" who was to be conducting it, because I happened to know that he was a long-standing member of the Security Service. Such activities are not a proper function of the Security Service.
Two very important activities of the Security Service are not covered in the Bill. First, much has been said about positive vetting. Some hon. Members will be surprised to learn about it. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned visits to universities in pursuit of positive vetting inquiries. Those inquiries are riot conducted by the Security Service. The Security Service has always taken the view that it is too secret to conduct positive vetting inquiries. The reality is that a small group of field inquirers, based at the Procurement Executive of the Ministry of Defence, conducts the positive vetting inquiries. The Security Service's argument has always been that security is too important to be left to the experts. It has said that there should be security departments in all Ministries and in all areas of Government, and that it will give those Departments advice.
It seems to me that the most sensible arrangement would be for the Security Service to conduct the positive vetting and to make the field inquiries. There have been countless examples. Indeed, virtually every major spy case since 1953 has involved somebody who has not just cleared his or her positive vetting, but sailed through it. The examples are legion so I shall not bother to give them. Another clear example—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Allason: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan).

Mr. Buchan: Several of us have been increasingly intrigued—and now disturbed—by the hon. Gentleman's apparent inside knowledge of the security services. We know of his past service in relation to this and about the books that he has written. However, into almost every speech—and at almost each moment—the hon. Gentleman drops in another piece of ex cathedra information about what the security services do or do not look after. Is the hon. Gentleman a member of MI5?

Mr. Allason: rose —

Mr. Buchan: Let me finish the question. The hon. Gentleman has allowed me to intervene—

Mr. Allason: The answer to the question is, "No, I am not."

Mr. Buchan: The first question is, is the hon. Gentleman a member of MI5? The second is, if not, and if he is in possession of all that information, which has been leaked—presumably illegally—from MI5, has he reported those leaks, and, if not, why not?

Mr. Allason: The short answer is, "No, I am not.", but I have conducted research over a period of 10 years. I hope that many hon. Members recognise that security is an important issue and one worth researching. It is not a matter of clandestine sources. I have written 10 books on this subject. I would honestly recommend that the hon. Gentleman buys them because they are good value.
I turn now to another area that is important in relation to security and vetting—

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Allason: Three years ago, after a bomb was placed on board an Air India jet flying across the Atlantic from Canada, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service decided that it would vet all airside personnel, that seems a proper occupation for it. About 14,000 people per year in Canada are routinely vetted because they have airside access to aircraft. Surely that is an area of professional expertise in which the Security Service should be taking an interest because it seems to me to be be at the heart of the defence of the realm. However, once again that aspect has been left to amateurs because the Security Service has taken the view that it is too secret to involve itself.
6.15 pm
I turn now to a couple of cases that have been raised about which I shall try to dispel some of the myths. Some facetious remarks have been made about the connection between the Communist party of Great Britain and foreign espionage. The fact is that over the years no fewer than two national organisers of the Communist party of Great Britain have been convicted of espionage and have served long terms of imprisonment. Because of that historical precedent, the Security Service has traditionally taken an interest in the Communist party—which seems not entirely unreasonable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South mentioned the vetting of potential Ministers. Once again, the examples given suggested that they were not espionage cases, but the two cases that my hon. Friend cited were

exactly that. The case of Will Owen is fairly well known. He was acquitted of several charges under the Official Secrets Act. Thereafter, the Security Service invited him to attend a meeting at which he was invited to supply more detailed information. He was reluctant to go and took with him a colleague from the Labour Benches. He visited the Security Service and gave a detailed confession.
Two Harts are involved in the next case, one of whom, Mrs. Jenifer Hart, supplied information to the Security Service. She admitted once having been employed in the Home Office and of having had illicit meetings with a man who was a suspected Soviet intelligence officer. Those are two clear cases within the responsibility of the Security Service in which information was supplied. It seems to me to be perfectly proper for the service to be involved.
We heard yesterday—we have heard again today—the tremendous myths of the Peter Wright attempts to undermine the Labour Administration. I watched the tape again last night to make absolutely certain that there was no mistake about what Peter Wright admitted when he was being cross-examined by John Ware on the "Panorama" programme. It was interesting that Peter Wright admitted that there was no truth in the so-called plot and that it was wrong to have claimed in his book that 30 officers were attempting to undermine the Labour Government. He said that it was himself and perhaps one other officer, who got cold feet, who were prepared to consider leaking detrimental information about Harold Wilson. David Leigh's book on this subject mentions several case histories, all relating to Labour Ministers and Labour Members of Parliament who had been investigated by the Security Service in some way or other. In each case, there was justification for that pursuit under Maxwell Fyfe.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem about Peter Wright is working out when he is telling the truth? Sometimes I wonder whether Peter Wright himself knows when he is telling the truth. Clearly, Peter Wright did give an interview in which he said that the Wilson plot was a fantasy, but he has also said on other occasions that, on balance, he is anxious not to give information which, overall, would damage the Security Service. Could the fact that he is now moving away from his original claims about the Wilson plot be in response to all kinds of external pressures, and the fact that he said—

Mr. Tony Banks: He has made his money.

Ms. Abbott: Yes. My hon. Friend has intervened to say that Peter Wright has now made his money and so he can afford to withdraw his claims.
One cannot judge the truth by what Peter Wright says from one day to another. However, it is a fact that a whole host of stories were leaked to the press during the 10 years in which Wilson was Prime Minister that served to undermine him. That is a fact that nobody can deny.

Mr. Allason: It is not denied that there were many rumours relating to Harold Wilson, but his own conduct inspired many of those rumours— [Interruption.] Well, I shall give hon. Members a small example. Harold Wilson made 14 visits behind the Iron Curtain— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, there is nothing suspicious about that, but at that time many business men were approached by


the Soviets and it was believed that perhaps he had been approached, yet he made no report on that subject. When an analysis was made of his movements behind the Iron Curtain, it was difficult to trace exactly where he had been or what he had been doing.
That is the kind of basis that was used by Peter Wright. When one turns that into the allegations in his book, one sees that they do not hold water at all. Under cross-examination by John Ware, Peter Wright collapsed like a pack of cards and, when he was asked why he had mentioned the 30 officers, he said that he did not believe that it would have caused a fuss.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) comes to this House as a self-professed expert, although he has not at any time given the House any serious indication of what is the basis of his knowledge. He does his case no good at all by the sort of smears in which he has been indulging in the case of the former Prime Minister. It is as ludicrous to accuse Lord Wilson of being a suitable subject for an inquiry as it would be to authorise the security services to survey the Prime Minister because she has said publicly of the president of Russia, Mr. Gorbachev, that he is a man with whom one can do business.

Mr. Allason: I entirely concede that. I believe that it is fair to say that there must be occasions when Security Service officers do not follow the correct scent and are misled. Is that not the nub of the second group of amendments, because what we are trying to do is to define the role of the Security Service? I urge the House to pay attention to the different changes that I have described in the role of the Security Service in recent years and to try to concentrate especially on the two areas that have changed recently, its new involvement in counterterrorism and its involvement in leak inquiries.

Mr. Michael Foot: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a most important contribution to the debate and I do not want to be distracted by the disgraceful slurs and smears of which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has just spoken in his references to the former Prime Minister and leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman was revealing the minds of some of his associates in the security forces, it should make us all the more alarmed. The hon. Gentleman is out of the service now, but I believe that no hon. Member would wish to concur with the doctrine that such pursuit of politicians would be justified because of visits that they had paid to countries behind the Iron Curtain. I can only hope that I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but that does not seem very likely. I suggest that the hon. Member for Torbay should read what he has said and take the earliest opportunity to apologise to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: If he were a man, he would.

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that this was the nub of the Bill, and I believe that he is right. Yesterday there were extremely important debates in which the House sought to establish some parliamentary control over the way in which the Bill was operated and the way in which the security services might operate. The replies from the Home Secretary to that important debate were certainly not satisfactory in terms of meeting the arguments in the debate, but they

were one way of dealing with the situation. I am sorry that the Government made no effort to listen to the arguments in the debate or to acknowledge the necessity for some genuine attempt at parliamentary control.
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has said today about that clause makes such control all the more necessary. I do not always agree with my right hon. Friend's views on constitutional questions. Indeed, I have a difference of opinion with him about what happened in the year 1688. I believe that it was a much better affair than he is prepared to admit. It did not have anything to do with democracy—the word had not been invented—but it had a great deal to do with parliamentary accountability. The reason why I take a more generous and liberal view of the matter than my right hon. Friend does is that one of the achievements of 1688, in my view, was to establish in a special way the subordination of the Crown to Parliament. My right hon. Friend's views about that are apposite, too.
Apart from cutting off the king's head a few decades before, that was the most significant constitutional legal assertion of the supremacy of Parliament and especially the supremacy of the House of Commons. Anyone who went along to the exhibition about 1688 and heard the words put into the mouth of William III by the Bill of Rights could appreciate that the Executive was being told that it was subordinate to this House. If the words of William III were repeated all over the world, they would stick in the throat of the present Prime Minister because they mean, "I acknowledge the supremacy of Parliament and I acknowledge that in all these matters I must come to Parliament and get Parliament's approval". What was said in 1688 was thus extremely relevant to this Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has illustrated, under this Bill the Government are seeking to make formal and legal—that makes it all the more dangerous—what has happened in the past with the Security Service. The Minister protests that it is a liberal advance and not a retreat, but we shall be incorporating into the law of the land definitions of subversion and parliamentary democracy and what is an offence against them, which is something that we have not previously had in our constitutional procedures and rules. If we allow that to go through and do not examine in detail what the consequences may be, I believe that the Bill will be even worse than the Bill that we shall be discussing later on the freedom of information. The Official Secrets Bill is a shocking one, but if we pass this clause in these terms, after we have had a chance to examine them, the other Bill will be worse still. The next step will be a court case based upon clause 2(1), which I believe could be highly dangerous.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared on this occasion, as he was not yesterday, to listen to the case put by some of his hon. Friends, with the support of the Opposition, and seriously to consider whether he does not have an obligation to the House to change the definition.
I shall consider first clause 1(3), although I do not know what the hell it means. Clause 1(3) states:
It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against the threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
I hope that we shall be told exactly what that novelty is, because that is what it is. If we need new provisions more relevant to modern times, we should consider, for example, the suggestions made earlier about chemical warfare and


other dangers. Those are modern developments which certainly require investigation by the Government. A secret service might have to operate in that kind of area and, if so. we should consider the matter in advance. If the Government's case is that they have put in clause 1(3) in order to cover general new eventualities, they should look at the new eventuality of that kind of warfare rather than the proposition in the clause. I have not heard a coherent explanation of what clause 1(3) means or against whom it is to be used. It seems an extraordinary provision and I should have thought that it ought to be deleted.
Even more serious are the implications that may be involved in the definition of subversion and so forth in clause 1(2), to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has already referred. If the Bill goes through on the basis of the discussions that we have had, no one will know for certain whether the different kinds of subversion that have been mentioned, and which MI5 felt entitled to investigate, are covered by the clause. Whatever Mr. Peter Wright may have been up to, no one will know for certain which of the activities that he described are excluded or covered by the Bill.
6.30 pm
There are other aspects of the Peter Wright affair that should be investigated and carefully examined by the Government. If we pass the Bill in the light of what happened in the past, we shall be sanctioning past events. One particularly disturbing revelation from the Peter Wright affair relates to the preparation of terrorist acts for the assassination of heads of foreign states. Peter Wright reveals that there was a plan to assassinate Nasser. If it is true that we had a secret service that was entitled, under its rules of operation, to prepare for the assassination of heads of foreign states, nothing could be more damning. If Nasser had been assassinated as a result of terrorist activities conducted by our Security Service, the consequences for our reputation throughout the middle east would be almost incalculable. Anybody who has been to Egypt knows the reputation that President Nasser had in that country, whether we liked it or not. If a British Government at that time were engaged in preparing for his assassination—an act of terrorism against a head of state —it was a monstrous affair.
Despite all the obstacles put in the way by the Home Secretary and his colleagues, the Peter Wright case eventually got to the judges, most of whom agreed with me about the implications of a possible plot to assassinate Nasser. They said that it was absolutely horrific that such an act might have been carried out by our secret service. Some of the judges questioned what would have been worse—a scheme to assassinate Nasser succeeding, or failing—and said that, either way, it would be outrageous if such activities had been authorised. They could think of nothing worse than terrorist acts against heads of other states being authorised and conducted by our secret service.
I had hoped that there would be an investigation into this matter. I wrote to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions and urged that, whatever happened at the end of the affair, she should instigate such an investigation. The Prime Minister has said that there has been an inquiry into all of Peter Wright's allegations, but when I asked whether it had incorporated an investigation into the supposed

preparations for the assassination of foreign heads of state she could not give any answer and, so far as I know, there has never been any proper investigation into that allegation. It is monstrous that such an inquiry has never occurred. If such things did occur, it is monstrous that, even 30 years later, this country does not have sufficient determination to protect its good name. We want that kind of thing rooted out.
The passage of the Bill has given us the chance to root out such problems by reconsidering the definition of subversion. It is important that such matters are reconsidered. If we do not deal with such questions properly now, people will come to us later and say that we had the chance to change the law when we examined it in detail. We shall be told how many hours we spent on it and told that, at the end of it all, we came up with a definition of subversion which was satisfactory to Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has accurately cited one or two reasons why the particular words in clause 1(2) were used. My right hon. Friend said that the definition was cooked up by Lord Harris of Greenwich in another place. The idea that clause 1(2) is a considered judgment on the meaning of subversion is laughable. I cannot imagine that the Home Secretary would want to rest his case on such feeble grounds. The definition is nothing like good enough.
Let us get the definition right. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) deserves great credit for the definition contained in amendment No. 47, which deals with the real anxieties of the nation. There are deep, justified and legitimate anxieties about. terrorism and all its modern apparatus and horror, particularly because of the way in which innocent people are drawn into terrorist acts. Of course the country wants measures taken which deal directly with such terrorism, and of course it is true that the secret services must deal with some forms of terrorist acts and operations. Those anxieties are dealt with in the first part of clause 1(2). It is all the more necessary, however, for the Government to ensure that they give an absolute defence for other people who are not engaged in terrorist activities but are engaged in perfectly legitimate criticisms of Government policy in whatever area. Such a defence must have occurred to the Home Secretary.
In attempting to achieve a new definition of subversion, we should apply our minds to whether the English language is sufficiently elaborate to enable that to be done. The current definition makes no distinction between terrorist acts and legitimate criticism in the current definition and all the objections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has made against the use of that definition are perfectly justified on that count. We must accept that a court could easily uphold the current definition of subversion against legitimate criticisms. It has happened before—for example, the actions taken against supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in previous years. I understand that some of those actions would still be justified under the definition outlined in clause 1(2). I do not know whether the Home Secretary will give us a direct answer on this matter. We remember that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) set up his own private apparatus and private army to conduct a war against CND. No doubt the more money he spent on it, the more he thought that he was getting on in the Conservative party. Some of us thought that that whole operation was absolutely outrageous, especially when it spilt over into secret activities against CND supporters.
When the Home Secretary comes to defend the definition contained in clause 1(2) when we reach the end of this debate, I hope that operations such as those conducted against CND will be absolutely excluded. Not that judges necessarily always take account of what the Home Secretary says at the Dispatch Box—I do not share the confidence of others about the way in which judges go about this matter. Even if the right hon. Gentleman gives us that assurance, it does not go far enough.
The other virtue of the clause advanced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that it offers a defence for legitimate criticism. The amendment lists what "threats to national security" means. They are genuine threats against which the nation has every right to protect itself. However, the amendment seeks to make a sharp distinction between genuine threats and every form of political advocacy that is properly understood by everyone in the House. A sharp distinction is drawn. The end of the amendment reads:
but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) above".
If a case such as MI5's shocking activities against CND ever came before a court of law in the future, that defence would protect a member of CND and anyone included in the categories referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield—the people who could be caught under the Government's ill-defined and absurd definition of subversion.
Once again I plead with the Home Secretary. This is a new measure, which he claims is a liberalising one. We sincerely believe that if the existing operation of the law or anything like it is incorporated in the Bill in legal form, the position could be even worse. That is why we must be so careful. This is the nub of the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield emphasised. It describes what the whole security system is supposed to be about. If the Home Secretary is genuine about the case that he has made to the House and the country, he should be able to accept the amendments tabled by his hon. Friends with a good grace.
The Home Secretary may be in some difficulty because the Prime Minister also has some interest in these matters. She has clearly brought pressure to bear on the Home Secretary on a range of issues touching civil liberties, the way in which the law operates and the way in which terrorism is dealt with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has conceded willingly on some, if not all, of these matters. I doubt, however, whether he was so eager as the Prime Minister to concede on the right to silence, or whether he was so eager to concede on interference with the proper presentation and reporting of affairs in Northern Ireland. Today, a new change is being made. I dare say there were discussions in Government about the definition, and I do not say it will be easy for the Home Secretary to change it, but if he really meant what he said—that he wanted a proper review of the whole subject—I see no reason why the new clause cannot be incorporated. It would not solve all the questions associated with official secrecy, but it would be a big stride forward towards obtaining common assent on these matters.
I do not know whether the Government want common assent. If the right hon. Gentleman looks back at the history of official secrecy, he will see what folly it was, way back in 1910 or 1911, to rush through a Bill without proper examination, and how foolish it has been to allow this kind

of law to stay on the statute book ever since. Now we have a chance to do the job differently. If the Home Secretary has any respect for what is known as his liberal reputation, I plead with him to accept the new clause and thereby change the way in which we set about this business.

Mr. Winnick: I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said. It is rare for the House to have an opportunity on two successive days to discuss in detail, in Government time, the activities of MI5. Usually this is a subject for Adjournment or Consolidated Fund debates. Subversion and related issues are important matters, and it is right to try to define subversion.
If time permits, I shall go up to the foreign affairs committee of the parliamentary Labour party this evening, at which two senior officials from the Soviet embassy—I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is taking note—will tell us about the internal changes taking place in their country. If I have the chance to participate, I shall say that I hope the time will come when the internal changes in the Soviet Union will be so extensive that members in the new Parliament that is coming into being there will be able to discuss these sorts of matters—the activities of the KGB and so on. I should have liked to be able to tell those officials that we had parliamentary control over MI5; I shall not be able to. I will, however, be able to say that our democracy allows us at least to debate these issues. That is one of the reasons why we have a Parliament.
Amendment No. 40 is my suggestion that
All members of the Service shall take an oath to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy.
I entirely accept that that would not prevent scoundrels such as Wright from taking such an oath and then carrying out the sort of subversive activities in which he undoubtedly engaged. But it would do no harm to make loyalty to parliamentary democracy perfectly clear. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) once said that we do not take here an oath to parliamentary democracy, and perhaps we should. I see no reason why MI5 officers should not. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said earlier that he was not sure whether Conservative Members were fully committed to parliamentary democracy. I think that the majority of them are, but I would find it difficult to believe that all of them are as committed to it as we are.
6.45 pm
One of the tests of commitment to parliamentary democracy is a commitment to its existence in all countries. It is interesting that Conservative Members often find reasons and excuses for not attacking regimes such as that in Chile. We believe that people everywhere have a right to a democratic system of government. That is why we on the Labour Benches criticise the vile regime in South Africa on one day, and what is happening in Czechoslovakia on another.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay knows that Field Marshal Lord Carver, when no longer chief of the general staff, said in the late 1970s that in the early months of 1974 some junior officers spoke about the possibility of taking non-parliamentary action to resolve what they saw as the crisis in Britain. Interestingly, Christopher Walker wrote much the same thing in The Times after visiting Army barracks at that time. He reported such remarks in the


dying months of the Conservative Government headed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). His articles were confirmed by Lord Carver, who presumably knew what he was talking about. I do not know why the Home Secretary dismisses that. It would be interesting to know whether MI5 investigated these activities—or did it take the view that as the Army officers were not engaged in Left-wing plots they needed no scrutiny?
Amendment No. 76 includes a definition of subversion which is an improvement on that given by Lord Harris in 1975—if I may say so to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. Amendment No. 76 suggests that the definition should be Lord Denning's, which remained the definition of subversion until the change in 1974. It is far narrower than the unfortunate definition of 1975, which was continued by this Government. In another amendment I have suggested a further alternative definition which would mean actions that are calculated to overthrow parliamentary democracy.
I do not disagree that it is necessary to protect national security and to provide protection against terrorism and sabotage. I have no quarrel with that whatever and would leave in the provisions relating to it because protection is one of the basic reasons for having a Security Service. I have long maintained that the definition of subversion should be as narrow as possible and should basically deal with actions that are calculated to overthrow by one means or another parliamentary democracy.
I have no doubt myself about what parliamentary democracy means. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) is not in the Chamber. It means the right to put forward and advocate, however strongly, views that are different from those of the Government and to be able to put them forward in Parliament and outside without fear of punishment. That is the basic difference between a parliamentary democracy and a dictatorship. I see many weaknesses in our parliamentary democracy, and I should like to see them rectified, but I have not the slightest doubt that I live in a parliamentary democracy. I have never gone in fear of being tortured by secret police. I know that in most countries that is not the case. I consider it a great blessing to live under a system of parliamentary democracy and civil liberties.
As I said earlier, I welcome the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union and in Hungary. I see no reason for having any doubts in our minds about the definition of parliamentary democracy. One of the undoubted weaknesses in our system of democratic government is the way in which investigations and inquiries have taken place into matters that should not have been investigated. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) spoke about the Select Committee on Home Affairs and referred to the inquiry into the special branch, which was the first ever such inquiry. I take some credit for that because I was on the Committee and persuaded to my view the majority of its members who were at first reluctant to have such an inquiry. I also wrote the minority report.
The Committee heard evidence from Mr. Alderson, who had been the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. He was an interesting witness and, presumably, he knows what he is talking about. He said that when he was appointed chief constable in Devon and Cornwall one of his first actions was to look through the records of special branch being held by the police there. He told the Committee that he found many records that were useless, out of date, or had absolutely nothing to do with subversion or crime. I wonder whether chief constables in other places look through such records.

Mr. Hurd: Did Mr. Alderson give any views about the Security Service, which is the subject of our debate?

Mr. Winnick: As the Home Secretary knows, special branch works closely with the Security Service. Special branch often carries out investigations at the request of the Security Service. Does the Home Secretary wish to challenge that in any way?

Mr. Hurd: That is correct.

Mr. Winnick: Special branch acts for the Security Service and I can understand why. I am not criticising that, but I criticise the keeping of records which Mr. Alderson said had absolutely no relevance to combating subversion. I wish that other chief constables would take the same attitude. Mr. Alderson told us that special branch had to report daily on industrial disputes and on the number of pickets involved in such disputes. He said that on some occasions daily reports were sent to the Home Office and always to police headquarters on all industrial disputes. That occurred in Mr. Alderson's time, and presumably things have not changed.
My reason for putting forward amendment No. 39 is to omit the word "industrial" from the definition of subversion. It is quite wrong that people should be investigated because they engage in perfectly legitimate trade union activity or industrial disputes. I do not take the view that when one engages in legitimate industrial activity—one of the rights of a parliamentary democracy —one is engaging in subversion or something close to it.
Why were MI5 files kept on Jack Jones and on Hugh Scanlon, now Lord Scanlon? Were they subversives? Is it suggested that Jack Jones, who at an early age went to fight Fascism in Spain, and who has always been in favour of our parliamentary system of democracy, is a subversive in the pay of Moscow? What about Hugh Scanlon? Why were MI5 files kept on such people? There have been abuses. It would not have been thought appropriate in any circumstances for special branch and MI5 to keep files on Tory politicians, however Right-wing. However, it was considered proper and legitimate—though not by me—to keep files on such leading figures in the trade union movement as Jack Jones and Lord Scanlon.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that certain elements in the security services do not see their function as defending parliamentary democracy? As I said earlier, as they see it, their function is to defend the status quo. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I said earlier, that means capitalism. They are defending the status quo and capitalism and not parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is acceptable to them and to many Conservative Members as long as it underpins and serves the interests of the status quo and capitalism. As soon as we start using


parliamentary democracy to try to introduce Socialism, we see how thin is the veneer of democracy on the Conservatives.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend may or may not be right, and the Home Secretary may respond to his intervention. I do not want to undermine what I have said so far, which, is an indictment of some of the abuses that have occurred. However. in all fairness, there is some evidence that ultra Right-wing organisations have been investigated—and properly so—by MI5. Papers that have been brought into the public domain show that the Mosley movement was certainly the subject of investigation before the war. One assumes that the National Front is the subject of continued investigation.
Perhaps I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and, if so, it is one of the few disagreements between us. I do not object if organisations of the ultra Left are looked into, because I am in favour of parliamentary democracy, unlike a few Conservative Members. I am totally committed to parliamentary democracy, perhaps if only for the selfish reason—although I hope not—that I know that in a dictatorship I would be one of the first people sent to a concentration camp. I trust that there are many other reasons why I am in favour of parliamentary democracy. I would certainly be joined in a concentration camp by many of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Tony Banks: It would be a pleasure to be there with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Winnick: I do not think that it would be a pleasure.
Perhaps I am also strengthened in my defence of parliamentary democracy because my ancestors lived in a country where there was no rule of law. They knew very well what happened when abuses occurred, and those abuses were often at the instigation of the police. I do not want to live under such a system. One of the reasons for my ancestors coming here was that they wanted to live under the rule of law and found such a life a great blessing compared to the situation in which they had lived before. I have many reasons for being grateful to this country, one of them being that it gave hospitality to my ancestors. Although they were not fleeing, they wanted to live in a different political climate.
My final point is about the right of protest, advocacy or dissent. I know that that is covered in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and it is also covered in new clause 4, which is mine. That new clause clearly says:
Nothing shall be done under this Act which undermines the right of protest, advocacy or dissent.
The Home Secretary will almost certainly say that nothing is done to undermine those democratic rights. But enough has been said in the debate today and yesterday and on previous occasions about the way in which people who legitimately engage in dissent on nuclear disarmament or civil liberties or on other matters have been investigated by MI5. It is quite likely that the Bill would not be before us if it were not for the outstanding cases to be brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Miss Patricia Hewitt to the European Court of Human Rights.
7 pm
When those cases are brought before the European Court of Human Rights—and they will not be abandoned —no doubt the Home Secretary or his agent will say, "These changes are taking place", and that will be his defence. If what I have said is right, we owe a tribute to those two women because they have demonstrated that if, in a parliamentary democracy, one is the subject of abuse, and if the state has acted against one without reason or justification, that should be pursued. That is a right that we should exercise whenever necessary.
We should say time and again as we debate the Bill that the right of protest, advocacy or dissent—no matter how much one disagrees with the Government, be they Labour or Tory—are basic rights that should be protected at every opportunity, especially as the Home Secretary would net deny that abuses have occurred in recent years.
In a foolish and stupid intervention, the hon. Member for Torbay suggested that there was some justification for investigating Lord Wilson. What was the reasoning of some MI5 official that Lord Wilson should be investigated, when even in his student days at Oxford—perhaps this is a criticism of him in relation to some of the ways in which young people of the time were protesting over what was happening in Spain and Munich—he was in no way involved? If a person such as he could be subject to investigation and suspicion-sustained suspicion, if the hon. Member for Torbay is right—simply because Lord Wilson made 18 or 19 trips behind the Iron Curtain, something must be very wrong indeed with certain officials involved with MI5 and with the attitudes of some Tory Members.
I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise why my hon. Friends and I have tabled this series of amendments and why they should be accepted.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not find it as easy as does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to define parliamentary democracy. Because it is so difficult to define, perhaps the Home Secretary will provide us with a definition. It may be said that parliamentary democracy can easily be recognised, but what is or is not permissible under a parliamentary democracy is more difficult to spell out.
I welcome the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) because it represents at least an attempt to deal with clause 1(2), which is most unsatisfactory. In that connection, it is unfortunate that we are debating the Bill on the Floor of the House because that denies us the opportunity of the more detailed scrutiny of the measure that would take place in Committee upstairs, and we will not be able to return to many of these issues on Report.
There is disquiet about the way in which subsection (2) is drafted, and it is unfortunate that because of the way in which the selection of amendments has been made, of which I make no criticism, we are having to debate many important issues together. Hopefully the Home Secretary will give his definition of parliamentary democracy so that we may judge how far activities that most of my hon. Friends would consider to be perfectly legitimate might be considered as undermining parliamentary democracy.
My amendment No. 81 would delete the word "undermine" and I have tabled it in an effort to discover


whether what I consider to be legitimate protests would come under the definition of activities that the Security Service should be trying to thwart.
Parliamentary democracy is much more than conducting elections or having votes in Parliament to give legitimacy to measures. There could be an element in a parliamentary democracy by which the minority gives its consent to be ruled by the majority. That is a difficult concept to develop and one which the Government do not fully understand, considering the way in which they treat certain parts of the British Isles, where the majority of people do not consent to the measures which are being inflicted on them by the Government.
I will not pursue that aspect far. If the elected Government of the day impose an incomes policy and trade unions decide that such a policy is not acceptable, and they set out to try with industrial action to undermine that policy, is that a form of legitimate protest and dissent which they are entitled to pursue without being subject to scrutiny by the Security Service?
There are many areas where individuals might try to alter Government policy by taking action. They may protest and organise in peaceful ways but ways likely to cause inconvenience and difficulty to other individuals. That would seem to me to be legitimate; the tradition in this country of peaceful, passive resistance is to be admired and that would not seem to be an area in which the Security Service should intervene.
Once one moves from that area of peaceful activity to violent activity, there is every reason why the Security Service should be involved. But I am not certain that the Home Secretary shares my idea of the division between peaceful and violent protest. The definition of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills appears to be nearer to my definition than that which the Home Secretary would probably give.
Clause 1(3) is extremely puzzling. On Second Reading several Members spoke of the economic well-being of the nation and the half answer we received from the Home Secretary was to the effect that our economic well-being was well defined and was contained in international treaty. I found that puzzling because if representatives of foreign Governments got together to cause a run on the pound or tried to create some other economic problem for us, that would be a legitimate area for the security services to investigate. But if the same people did the same thing in the City of London, it would appear not to be a legitimate area for investigation because subsection (3) refers to
threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
That is puzzling because it seems to imply that the security services, which I understand operate within the United Kingdom, should try to find out what is going on abroad, whereas if the same activity appears to be happening within the country, that is not a legitimate area for investigation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made great play with the fact that in his view the Bill is about serving the capitalist system. I should have thought that his remarks were relevant to subsection (3), the economic well-being of the nation. The difference between our economic well-being and capitalism would, I

imagine, be hotly debated in this Chamber. It is an area extremely difficult to define, and that is why the Government should delete clause 1(3).
My amendment No. 82 is concerned with clause 2(2)(b) which states
that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.
Why is that provision necessary? It seems automatic that the Security Service would not take action in the interests of any political party. But if it is necessary to include such a provision—and I can see good reason for having it—it should go further and add, as I suggest, that the Security Service should not take any action in support of
any individual, any company or any organisation.
In other words, the Security Service should not be partial. In recent years there has been evidence to show that some people in the Security Service have operated in a way that has favoured the interests of a particular individual.
There was a feeling that Chapman Pincher, as a reporter with the Daily Express, obtained certain pieces of information—or gave the impression that he had obtained certain pieces of information—because he was on a favourable footing with the security services. That state of affairs appeared to favour him as a journalist and to favour the security services because the information that he revealed helped them. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Torbay is not here at the moment. He gave the impression that certain people in the security forces have been more willing to talk to him than they have to other journalists. That has worked to his benefit because it has helped to build up his reputation as an expert on the security services. Presumably it has also helped the security services as they believe that they have found someone to put forward their point of view. The security services should not operate in favour of any individual in that way.
I wish to deal now with the question of how far the security services should, or should not, operate in favour of a particular company. There is probably far more talk than action about the way in which other countries want to obtain good intelligence about our military operations and capability. Other Governments are keen to obtain that information, but there are many companies involved in the armaments industry for which it is just as important to know the exact capabilities of weapons systems made by other companies so that they can further their own commercial interests. That issue becomes particularly difficult when multinational companies are involved. They want to collect information about a weapons system so that they can put forward their system as the better system or find a defect in the system so that they can find a niche in the market. The security services should not operate a policy that favours particular companies.
Those companies obtain a great deal of information from the ex-civil servants and people with a military background whom they employ. The security services should not favour any particular company or organisation. Some organisations have strong political links. It is not just political parties that contest elections, but anyone with strong political views which may be incorporated in an organisation, although such an organisation may not be recognised as a political party that puts up candidates for election.
The Government must explain why it is necessary to define a political party as not having any support from the security services and why it is not necessary to include companies or organisations in the provisions. I hope that


they will explain why they have included clause 1(3) and that, as a result of this debate, they will find a far better definition than is included in clause 1(2).

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak now because the Committee has listened to all those hon. Members who tabled amendments. I should like to cover most of the points that have been raised.
We have all enjoyed the increasingly frequent trips of the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) back into the 17th century. I know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is an addict because he occasionally visits, in Burford churchyard in my constituency, the place where his heroes, the levellers, were taken out and shot by the hero of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, Oliver Cromwell. Obviously they have composed their differences today.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that we are taking an area of public activity out of the realm of the prerogative and putting it into the realm of statute. He described that as the process of 1688. He was right to say that, as we are proposing to do that, the House should consider carefully the definitions proposed by the Government because they are now in statute and statute is in the custody of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) then carried the argument forward logically. He was too skilful to ask for details of what was done, or not done, in the past, but he used his examples to pin us down about the future. We have asked Parliament to define closely, for the benefit of Government and the Security Service, the limits within which the Security Service will have to operate in future. That is the purpose of the Bill. We are asking Parliament to set limits which will be binding in future. It is therefore perfectly legitimate that we should spend a great deal of time on how those definitions are worked out.
7.15 pm
Then, logically, we come to the scheme produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We should be clear about the difference between his approach and that of the Government, which is not a fundamental difference of principle, but one of flexibility, or relative inflexibility. My hon. Friend put his case very reasonably. In amendments Nos. 46 and 47 he seeks to define absolutely and comprehensively the purposes of the Security Service. The Bill takes a different approach. The House should understand that; I do not want anyone to be deceived hereafter. We define the protection of national security as the objective. The Bill states:
The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security".
We then list a number of issues that fall into that category, which, at present, includes most of the activities of the Security Service.
Under our supposition, other activities could be included, provided that it is for the protection of national security. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised this point. He was modest about his exposition of the case, but he put it very clearly. If we accept the Government's approach in the Bill, and if, therefore, the Security Service is not absolutely confined

by the definitions of the moment—for example, the definitions in my hon. Friend's proposal—will its scope go too wide? I should like to address that point.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify one point. Is he saying that this is only a partial definition? I should have covered the implications of the phrase "in particular" because it has tremendous implications for the issue of warrants. The Home Secretary, guided 11,nv the reference point of the statutory duty regarding the issue of warrants, controls the way in which national security is defined. The use of the phrase "in particular" appears to indicate that the provision refers to only some of the duties, albeit the principal ones. 11. implies that there are additional duties which could take. the issue much wider. It makes it difficult for the House to judge the matter in the context of the issue of warrants.

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to precisely that point. So far, I have set out the difference between the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the approach in the Bill. That difference was clearly expounded by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
The definition has to be comprehensive. The committee would not want to establish a description of functions that did not cover all areas in which the Security Service might, now or in the future, have to become involved. If the committee did that, it could create an intolerable position, where the Security Service might be powerless to defend us or where there might be great pressure and, therefore, strains on the way in which the legislation was interpreted and understood. It would be wrong for the committee to establish a Security Service that was unable to protect the security of the nation from whoever threatened it.
The term "national security" relates to the survival and well-being of the nation. That has been the continuing and consistent understanding of successive Governments and Parliaments. One can imagine a situation—I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to consider this point—where everyone would expect the Security Service to take a hand in protecting the national security. No matter how clever we are now in working out allegedly comprehensive definitions, we may not succeed and the Security Service may find itself in a legal difficulty. For example, a new and devastating weapon could be secretly developed which had clear and obvious implications for the defence of this country. Unless it fell absolutely within the definitions set out by the committee if it adopted my hon. Friend's proposal, the Security Service could not do anything to identify or prevent the threat unless it involved terrorism, sabotage or the activities of agents of foreign powers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South illustrated my point in his amendment requesting the addition of the word "chemical". He is concerned about a danger—he expressed his fear dramatically and well—which, he believes, is not only on the horizon but almost upon us. He believes that the Security Service should be trained and able, within the remit outlined in the Bill, to deal with that danger. Another hon. Member might make a similar speech about biological threats, but that issue is not dealt with in any of the amendments. My hon. Friend's point illustrates the difficulty of attempting to take into account all the uncertainties of the future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hurd: In drafting legislation that relates to the nation's security we cannot avoid recognising the fact that we cannot always foresee from where the next threat will come. If we had been drafting this legislation 30 years ago we might not have put the emphasis on terrorism as the Bill and the scheme of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills do.
The Bill allows the Security Service to identify and, if necessary, take action to prevent such threats. It is right to do so. However, clause 1 makes it clear that the Security Service is not able to act except to protect the security of the nation and to safeguard its economic well-being from outside threats. It cannot act in support of sectional and other interests without acting outside its remit.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that the function of the Security Service shall be the protection of national security. He has added a few other words to show the extent to which that is so, but they are merely the icing on the cake. The essence of the clause is to say that the function of the Security Service is the protection of national security. That requires no definition because we have talked about it in previous debates and exigencies that we cannot now contemplate may arise in the future. Clause 1(2) cannot be an all-embracing definition, although it relates to a few serious threats to the nation. It is broad and it is not a definition of the proper function.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has a different approach designed to provide, in January 1989, a comprehensive breakdown of how the protection of national security should be achieved. The Bill does not do that and I have explained why. I do not think that we can do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, by trying to add to that comprehensive breakdown an aspect which he believes to be important, has illustrated my point.

Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has taken issue with the attempt to define national security as set out in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I prefer the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills' amendment and I put my name to it, but there is an alternative. My amendment No. 74 was designed to give effect to what the Home Secretary has just said about the breadth of the phrase "national security". The Home Secretary said that by "national security" we mean that which threatens the safety and well-being of the state. That is an objective test which was included in Lord Harris of Greenwich's definition and in the Maxwell Fyfe directive. However, for some reason which is not clear to me, the Government have departed from their earlier definition and are using the phrase "national security" as if its meaning were obvious. As a result, they are opening wide the ambit of the service to look not only at matters which by any test are a threat to national security but at matters which are not a threat to national security and should not be covered by the Bill. Why will the Home Secretary not accept the language of Lord Harris of Greenwich's definition?

Mr. Hurd: I have just re-read the hon. Gentleman's amendment. He seems to accept the basic point that it is difficult to define by statute all the circumstances in which the Security Service might intervene to protect national

security. I have given one or two examples, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South gave another in the form of an amendment.
Having re-read the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I do not think that it alters the position. The Bill as drafted sets out clearly the bulk of the activities of the secret service. That is not defined in a way that would prevent the service from moving into new spheres if it was found to be necessary.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: I wish to get on. This is a Committee stage and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Shepherd: I wish to elucidate a point. That is the purpose of a Committee, it it not?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made much of the concern about the word "chemical". Paragraph (a) of amendment No. 47 provides a mandate by which to pursue anxieties involving chemical warfare. It may be defined as sabotage and may be said to be detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom. It could be covered by paragraph (b), which involves a "threat to any person". There is a series of catch-alls for the contingency which concerns my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the House. The definitions in amendment No. 47 are wide enough.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that we can be sure that they are wide enough. If a crisis arose, it might be possible to slot it into my my hon. Friend's definitions. Presumably my hon. Friend tabled the amendment because he fears that it might not be possible, and it is better to be clear beyond peradventure that it fits in. Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South was not content to take his chances with amendment No. 47. In picking up his point and the points raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I am expounding the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend's definition of national security include a Security Service investigation of a leak inquiry into the loss of a DHSS document?

Mr. Hurd: The matter has been raised, and I have a statement of the present situation which would remain unchanged under the Bill. It is for Departments to make proper arrangements for the security of their papers before there is any question of a leak. They may take advice from the Security Service where appropriate. If there is reason to believe that departmental information has been leaked, obviously it is for that Department to deal with it. The advice and assistance of the Security Service would not be sought unless issues of national security were involved. That seems to me to be a reasonable position.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and studied his amendment No. 40. Of course we are familiar with the different aspects of our national life. Indeed, in another context there is a proposal before the House concerning Northern Ireland. It is perfectly true that police constables and members of the armed services are given particular powers under the Crown. I do not consider that members of the Security


Service are in that category or that it would serve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman had in mind to put them, but not other civilian servants of the Crown, in that position.
I now move to the concern about subversion which has been expressed by just about every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. It is generally accepted that the Security Service must be able to protect the nation from those who threaten national security by seeking to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy. There are differences in interpretation, but I do not wish to accept the invitation of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to describe exactly what is meant by parliamentary democracy. If the House accepts the Bill, I do not consider that the courts will have very much difficulty on that point. The question concerns the definition of subversion. Despite their deep scepticism, I should like to allay the genuine concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition and by Conservative Members about how that is to be defined.
We start from the definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has had a terrible mauling from his previous friends. When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was in full swing about the horrors of that definition, I noticed the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) look rather attentively at his papers because he specifically endorsed that definition when he was Home Secretary. Therefore, it has a rather more distinguished lineage than the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent gave it credit for. It states:
Subversive activities are generally regarded as those which threaten the safety or well-being of the State and which are intended to undermine or overthrow Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1975; Vol 357, c. 947.]
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was anxious that both legs of that definition—I think that he described them more elegantly as limbs—should appear in the Bill. I hope that I can persuade him that that is already the case. First,
the safety or well-being of the State
is covered by the reference in the Bill to
the protection of national security".
I repeat that national security can relate only to the safety or well-being of the nation. The second limb is also spelt out in the Bill. I ask the Committee carefully to consider the restrictions in the Bill on that part of the functions of the Security Service. The Bill homes in on
actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means.
Therefore, it is clear that there has to be a deliberate intention. It is not enough that a person's actions might be argued to have that unintended effect. However, if that is someone's deliberate intention, it is reasonable to include in the Bill those who seek to undermine parliamentary democracy as well as those who aim to overthrow it, otherwise there would be a weakness in our defence.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall complete my argument before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has tabled amendments on this matter.
Under the provisions of the Bill, even that would not be enough to bring the Security Service into play. As clause 1 is drafted, the Security Service could do nothing unless

such intentions represented a real threat to the security of the nation. I consider that it is a reasonable definition. It includes
political, industrial or violent means
because it would be naive to suppose that people with such a deliberate intention could not represent a threat to the security of the nation by exploiting the industrial life of the country. Under the restrictions that I have defined, it would not be sensible to accept the amendment that seeks to delete the word "industrial" because it is possible to conceive of people in that category using industrial means for their purposes. It does not mean that anyone engaged in industrial action is liable to the attention of the Security Service. I shall return to that point more positively in a moment.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) has not yet spoken, but I shall give way to him and to the hon. Member for Walsall, North when I have completed my argument on this point.
The Security Service should be able to identify and obtain information about those who exploit freedoms under the law to overthrow or undermine our parliamentary democracy. That is preferable to waiting, helpless and ignorant, until some illegal or violent action is taken to overthrow our democratic system. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is correct in that. I hope that I have shown the Committee that the power of the Security Service is strictly limited. We knew that that would be a particular concern, and we have spent a substantial amount of time mulling over it.
Although the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent pressed me hard to accept the amendment, he suggested that it might be useful if I spelt out the point in a more positive way. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also came close to making that point. There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise: which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole. It does not matter if such people have views on the structure or organisation of Parliament or if they are involved in seeking to change industrial practices in this country or to negotiate a better deal if they are members of trade unions, or if they seek to challenge or change the Government's policies relating to defence, employment, foreign policy or anything else. The narrow party political interests of the Government of the day have no part to play in deciding on the necessary involvement of the Security Service. Its sole criterion in relation to a subversive threat is whether there is a deliberate intention to undermine parliamentary democracy and whether that presents a real threat to the security of the nation.
In the light of the comments made in yesterday's debate, I asked for such a statement this morning, perhaps rather foreseeing the point made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I do not expect hon. Members to accept it in toto because that is not the nature of the debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members find that interpretation useful, and to some extent reassuring, in defining the purpose of the Bill. It is not meant as a declaration of ministerial policy but a statement of what the Bill contains.

Mr. Winnick: What has just been stated by the Home Secretary should be in the Bill itself, so that there can be no doubt or ambiguity. Also, given that Lord Harris of Greenwich's definition has become so controversial and has been abused—though the Home Secretary will not admit it—what is wrong with the original definition given by Lord Denning, which was in use until 1975 and whose terms I have included in amendment No. 76? What is wrong with amendment No. 77, which would insert, instead of Lord Harris's definition,
which are calculated to overthrow Parliamentary democracy"?

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Benn: rose—

Mr. Hurd: It may be helpful if I give way immediately to the hon. Member for Paisley, south.

Mr. Buchan: It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to make a statement of the kind that he has made when the interpretation he offers could be accepted and written into the Bill by a Government amendment. There is no security provided by any statement made by a Minister at the Dispatch Box. There are other ways of dealing with the matter. A schedule can be inserted for the avoidance of doubt. It could be included in the Bill, preceded by the words
nothing in the above section means"—
or something of that kind. Such an addition will provide security. Otherwise, the Home Secretary will create great anxiety and terror among many people in this country.

Mr. Hurd: I was not attempting to make a statement of ministerial policy. Instead —and I took some care about it —I responded to an invitation extended by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, though I did not know that I would be doing so. What I set out is the interpretation of the Bill. It is a description of what the Bill contains —not only in clause I but in other clauses —including that concerning political influence.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Gentleman has made his statement in the form that he has, I hope that he will consider incorporating those same words into the Bill—though whether they go as far as we would wish is something I should like to consider. If the Home Secretary incorporates those words into the Bill—and I trust that he will do so—I hope that he will then give the House an opportunity to consider them again, and to amend them if necessary. That is the proper way by which the House should legislate. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to take that course, which would be a concession that the House will greatly value.
7.45 pm
Will the Home Secretary also tell the Committee what he proposes to do about the suggestion that the amendment of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) deals with lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless it is carried on in conjunction with any of the activities to which the clause refers? Will he also undertake to ensure that such a provision, whether in the form suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) or in some other, will be included in the Bill? If he includes both, we shall be making a real advance. Certainly the Home Secretary must tell the Committee what is his view of the clause, which is designed

to protect liberal argument and discussion in the way that it has been understood in this country for many generations.

Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Bill—I have drawn on clauses concerning political bias that we have not yet reached—he will find that the points about dissent that concern him are covered. The scope of the Security Service is as I have rather carefully stated it. The definition of national security is as I have rather carefully stated it. I do not intend improvising further on that point. I am sure that anyone studying my remarks against the background of the Bill will find in the Bill textual justification for everything that I have said. I am not attempting to add a ministerial gloss. I am simply stating the Bill's impact.

Mr. Benn: It is well known that, when a case goes to court, the views of a Minister when presenting a Bill to the House carry no weight with the judges, who are there to interpret the words of the statute approved by Parliament and not the opinion of the Minister, who may be a bird of passage.
By uttering words that we cannot examine in writing and amend, the Home Secretary denies us the power —even if we agree with every word of what he said—to enact in statute the assurance he gave. His assurance will not carry any weight in another place, because it was made in this House. Also, is it a collective statement? Has that statement been through the Cabinet, or is it just the Home Secretary's way of getting out of a difficulty in the light of the powerful arguments made today? I hope that the Home Secretary recognises that I am not being discourteous or unsympathetic but that we want matters affecting civil liberties to be enshrined in statute rather than rely on Lord Kilmuir or Lord Harris of Greenwich, or—dare I say it?—the present Home Secretary, whose future authority may not last for ever or be held to be adequate.

Mr. Hurd: Of course it will not last for ever, and I am not pretending that it will. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was present in the Chamber when his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent invited me to give the interpretation that I did. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that it was not binding in a court of law. I am not seeking to add to the Bill. I am simply explaining what the Bill contains, which is the whole purpose for which it has been worked out by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills drew attention to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Leanderv Sweden case in 1987. We are satisfied that the Bill meets the requirements of the convention, taking account of its terms and of case law, including the judgment to which my hon. Friend referred.
I come to the separate point concerning the nation's economic well-being, which is the subject of several amendments, and on which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish spent some time, as did other hon. Members. The purpose is to allow the Security Service to safeguard the United Kingdom's economic well-being from hostile foreign actions and adverse developments arising outside these islands. It relates to foreign affairs and not to the domestic affairs of this country. The hon. Member for


Denton and Reddish made a critical point, but what would be his view if protection of the nation's economic well-being had not been confined to threats from outside these islands? He would immediately pounce on the Government for attempting to allow the Security Service to intervene in any form of industrial action that might damage the country's well-being. That aspect is deliberately restricted and confined in the way that the Bill sets out. By virtue of the reference to the United Kingdom, it must be a matter of national significance, and not something trivial or peripheral to the nation's economic well-being.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills knows that the European convention on human rights defines a nation's economic well-being as being a matter of proper concern for a public authority. However, the Bill offers a much narrower definition than does the European convention on human rights. It is proper that the Security Service should be able to join with others in safeguarding the nation's economic well-being from outside threat. It must be in a position to contribute to that objective when it is best placed to do so—and that requires an appropriate provision in the Bill.
It is not difficult to envisage the circumstances in which such a safeguard will be needed. One does not need to use one's imagination, because two such threats arose in dramatic circumstances over the past 20 years. It can happen that there is a threat from abroad in respect of a commodity upon which we are particularly dependent. One can think of oil as being such an example from the past, though not now. One thinks also of foreign powers employing covert intelligence methods to obtain scientific and technical secrets—though not by using agents, which will be covered either by the Bill or my hon. Friend's alternative.
Although such occasions may not arise frequently, it is important that the Security Service should have the necessary power, subject to the restrictions and with the definition that I have explained, particularly as it is a power envisaged by the European Court of Human Rights as one for which the state may have special responsibility.
I have tried to give way, as is right in Committee, and I hope that I have dealt with all the substantial points made on both sides of the Committee. Yesterday's debate was on a major point of principle. I do not think that questions of definition present such major points of principle, but—as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out—they are crucially important as the legislation goes on to the statute book.
I do not wish to be polemical, but we are still in a certain amount of difficulty because of suspicions felt especially by Opposition Members, which, although they are largely unfounded, somewhat obscure their vision of the future. I hope that, as they examine the Bill—which will bind the service and Ministers in the future—as it is and as it will be interpreted by the courts, they will find that, although it does not include everything they want, such as parliamentary oversight, it is a substantial step forward that most hon. Members will welcome.

Mr. Foot: We still hope that, having gone so far, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared seriously to consider incorporating in the Bill the form of words that

the has put forward. The Bill will have no Report stage unless an amendment is carried, and we want a chance to examine the wording.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has answered the central question that I have put to him, as have other hon. Members: why do the Government refuse to include wording that underlines that lawful advocacy, protest or dissent carried on in normal ways is perfectly appropriate and that no Security Service operations can be allowed to interfere with it? Why do they not seize the opportunity to remove some fears by incorporating such a provision, in their own words if they wish? If, as he has said, that is what the Home Secretary means, why does he not say it in the Bill?

Mr. Hurd: The Bill sets about the problem in a different way. It sets out to say what the Security Service can do rather than what it cannot do. It uses the Harris definition, which the right hon. Gentleman so dislikes, of subversion and the restrictions of damage to the United Kingdom as a whole, and the other restrictions that I have spelt out. Although, as is the custom in statute, the Bill approaches the question by saying what a Government can do, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it arrives at the same conclusion.

Mr. Buchan: I shall endeavour to be brief because there are many serious points to be made by my colleagues and we hope to achieve at least some progress in ministerial understanding. We have some serious words to say to the Home Secretary. He recognised, or at least said that he recognised, the genuine anxiety felt by Opposition Members. I stress that we are not engaged in a political ploy; we are desperately anxious about the present nature of the Bill and the resistance to change embodied in it. I remind the Home Secretary that we have only one opportunity to look again at the Bill in the light of his statement. If he accepts a small amendment today, we shall be able to debate the Bill on Report. There are several minor amendments which, if the right hon. Gentleman accepted them now—or accepted one of them—could be rejected on Report if he wished.
Freedom is not a simple thing. It is very fragile, and I think that the Home Secretary is taking the concepts developed in the Bill rather too lightly. Yesterday we tried to find means of controlling the Security Service; today we are considering what is to be controlled. The position is the more serious because we made no progress yesterday in allowing the operations of the service to be brought before a Committee of the House. We are faced with a double jeopardy. The Security Service will be under the sole control of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, with no public, representative or accountable analysis to be carried out by Parliament. Moreover, the material with which the service will be legally empowered to deal is, in our view, wide, extensive, dangerous and genuinely worrying.
This is not a political point. It is one thing for those who make up the structure of government to behave in a secretive fashion, getting up to a kind of skullduggery—as it must now be seen—and sanctifying their behaviour by the law. The state as a whole is then moved towards accepting the destruction of freedom. When that was done in an underhand way—under the counter, as it were—at


least the basis of freedom sanctified in nation and state was maintained. But when it is made legal the state is in a mess: it is indeed in danger.
The Bill says that the function of the Security Service is to protect the nation
from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means
If that definition is not confined or limited, it will be an open sesame for this or any future Home Secretary. Without power to control, our parliamentary democracy cannot be regarded as safe. Parliamentary democracy is in a very weak condition. On issue after issue we have had to rely on the House of Lords to be progressive and to safeguard the well-being of the country.
I was waiting to hear on what basis the Home Secretary could reject the words of safety introduced in many of the amendments, particularly those of his hon. Friends in amendment No. 47. They were not rejecting what he now says is the purport of the Bill; on the contrary, it was assumed that that should be its purpose. Amendment No. 47 defined and therefore limited it so as to bring about the safeguards that we seek.
We cannot even get it written into the Bill that industrial or political action confined to lawful advocacy, protest or dissent will not be subject to the investigations of a body subject only to control by the Prime Minister. I do not know what security that gives to industrial workers given the behaviour of the present Prime Minister at the height of the miners' strike. If the Home Secretary had visited some of the mining villages he would have known the depth and sincerity of feeling there. The Government regarded the strike as a scandalous operation, not realising that hearts and souls were involved. At the height of that action few of us could see the mining villages without being touched by the genuine decency of the whole operation, but the Prime Minister chose to describe the people there as the enemies within. We cannot trust such a Prime Minister. I believe that I could trust the Home Secretary if he was not controlled by such a Prime Minister—I think that he is displaying weakness, not evil—but we certainly cannot trust a future unknown Prime Minister.
8 pm
In every way the liberties and the freedoms of this country have been whittled away. Now they are being whittled away from Parliament. We are not even given the opportunity to put into legal form the words and intentions uttered by the Home Secretary. If he means what he says, he must put it in the Bill. I too have been a Home Office Minister, or at least a home affairs Minister at the Scottish Office. Time and again one was told, "It is no use standing at the Dispatch Box explaining what you mean because no judge will listen. If that is what you mean, you must put it into legal form." What the Home Secretary means is not in the Bill. If it were, we might be discussing it or amendments to it. The Home Secretary says that it is implied in the Bill, but it is not stated in the Bill. If he wishes to state it in the Bill, there are easy ways of doing it. He could do it in a schedule. He could do it, as I said, by adding that nothing in the subsection affects the safeguarding of protest and dissent. If we examine what the Government actually believe the provision to be saying, it is for the protection of national security. His hon.
Friends have defined that in a series of ways and sought to limit it. His answer is that a situation might arise with new elements of terror, as in King Lear's
such things—what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth.
That is what he says, but it is nonsense. The threats are of espionage, terrorism and sabotage, but other Members have found means of qualifying that so that protest, dissent and industrial action can be permitted. We plead with the Home Secretary to do the proper thing here. He cannot do it unless he allows a Report stage because the provision is not in the Bill. His words are not in the Bill. If they were in the Bill, he would not have needed to come to the Dispatch Box to iterate them as being his point of view. Let us have a small amendment so that we can come back to the matter on Report.
The legislation introduced alongside this—the legalising of burglary, bugging and so on—is an open and eager extension of what we used to accuse the security services of doing. I have given my own experience in relation to MI5 and the security system. We said that they should not be doing such things and were told that they could not be doing such terrible things. The Bill now says that they can. I do not think that the Home Secretary has taken on board what this is doing to liberty and freedom in this country, any more than he did when he failed to understand the judgment of the Law Lords in relation to the Official Secrets Act and the defence of public interest, which he has apparently discarded.
I regret to say this to a genuinely honest and liberal Minister, but even if we come through this period without this blowing up in our faces he will still go down in history not as the most liberal Home Secretary but as the most illiberal and weak Home Secretary. He can show strength tonight by at least granting that single small concession. Let us have an amendment—there are plenty that he can accept without destroying the Bill—so that we can come back to the matter. Failing that, we must depend upon the House of Lords. What price parliamentary democracy now, when we cannot rely on the House of Commons to defend its own parliamentary democracy but have to rely on the House of Lords to do it for us? We have to look not to the heralds of freedom that we have found on these Benches in the past, but to the judges whose function should be to iterate the law. To them we must turn.
This is a sad day for the Home Secretary and a sad day for the country. I hope that he will rethink.

Ms. Abbott: There is always something slightly "Alice in Wonderland" about discussing the security services, and so it is this evening. About 10 minutes ago I heard a statement of policy by a Minister, who went on to assure us it was not a statement of ministerial policy, and we now understand it cannot stand up in a court of law. I am obliged to ask in all naivety, if it is not a statement of policy and it will not stand up in a court of law, why did he bother to make the statement? Is it simply to reassure us on a personal basis that the Minister is, after all, a kindly and humane man? We are not concerned with that. What I believe my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are concerned with is the actual text of the legislation which we are debating this evening.
It is with a certain amount of diffidence that anybody speaks in this debate, which is so full of people who have either worked for MI5 or have fantasised about working


for M15, and people who are Home Secretaries or have fantasised about being Home Secretaries. Nonetheless, I make a small contribution.
I listened with care to the Secretary of State explaining the tangled and subjective wording around the definition of threats to national security and, as I understood what he had to say, he gave three explanations for words which everyone who has spoken has said are lamentable and fail to meet the case. He said that the wording simply sets out what the Security Service does at the moment. Some of us might say that that is the problem. He went on to say that the wording has to do with the fact that it is, of course, impossible to be comprehensive in a Bill. We on this side would argue that that is mere sophistry. The point which is so important about amendment No. 47 is what it says the Bill does not include. The Secretary of State's final explanation for his wording is that this Bill is about what the Security Service can do, not what it cannot do.
This is the point of many of the interventions this evening. We believe that, given the very wide powers the Security Service has, given the absence of effective parliamentary scrutiny and surveillance, it is crucial that the legislation specifies what the Security Service cannot do, and that is the point of the final two sentences of amendment No. 47.
We have heard from the Secretary of State very beguiling assurances, but they are assurances which have no weight, which have no force, and, above all, would not stand up in court. We on the Labour Benches believe that it is crucial that the text of this legislation embodies something which reflects the final lines of amendment No. 47 and reflects the spirit of what the Minister has said. It is not too late—in fact, it is in all respects appropriate that at the Committee stage an amendment should be brought forward which reflects the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have sat right the way through this debate getting more and more concerned by what I have heard raised on both sides of the Committee in terms of the amendments moved, and my fear and trepidation of this Bill was compounded by what the Home Secretary had to say. He gave us a considered view on what the definitions, as he saw it, were supposed to be all about. He gave us what amounted to an assurance from the Dispatch Box with regard to definitions, and yet he was not prepared to agree to a demand from both sides to incorporate such assurances, such statements, within the Bill.
There is no report stage tonight, but what the Home Secretary said earlier could be incorporated in another place. If what has been said at the Dispatch Box tonight were put in writing, we could see how it accords with our understanding of the matter and whether it meets the various poins that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have tried to put forward tonight. If it does, it could easily be incorporated in the Bill.
The Home Secretary must have thought long and hard about his statement in view of what was said yesterday and what he knew would be said tonight. It would be a shame to waste all that careful consideration and let it pass into the annals of parliamentary history; into the Official Report, but not into the Bill.
As a number of hon. Members have already said, all the assurances in the world in Committee when legislation is being drafted mean nothing when the Act is considered in a court of law. We must all assume that the Bill will at

some stage be tested in court. Someone will be judging actions against the words of the legislation. We accept that the Home Secretary's intentions are honourable. but we want to make sure that those honourable intentions are enshrined in the Bill so that we can sleep more easily in our beds when it becomes an Act.
As we have said throughout, we want to try to define more narrowly the boundaries within which the security services can legally confine their activities. That is perfectly reasonable. We understand that they operate in a grey area; that is the nature of the security forces. So much more important, then, is it that we should make sure that as far as possible we define their activities within that grey area. There will always be areas of discretion. On many occasions in future the Home Secretary will have to decide whether to authorise certain actions. We accept that as well. But we cannot allow the Home Secretary in effect to say that national security means exactly what he believes it to mean. That is not an adequate definition for us.
There are many things that I could say about terminology. There is no immediate consensus between the Home Secretary, some Conservative Members and every Labour Member who has spoken tonight on parliamentary democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was right to ask what would happen if a Labour Government pressed for the abolition of the other place, which at the moment is part of Britain's parliamentary democratic set-up. If the Labour party campaigned at a general election for the abolition of the House of Lords and a Labour Government then took office determined to carry out their manifesto pledge, would they fall foul of the interests and activities of the security services? It could be said that by trying to eliminate the other place the Labour Government were undermining parliamentary democracy.
In a political forum we can never completely agree on definitions that have any form of political connotation. That is obvious. However, it is reasonable to ask the Home Secretary to accept amendment No. 47 which excludes
lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to
from threats to national security which are the subject of activities by the security services.
The Opposition believe fervently and passionately i n parliamentary democracy. Some Conservative Members might not believe that, but we do and we always try to preserve parliamentary democracy. The Opposition believe so much in parliamentary democracy that we want to try to achieve Socialism through parliamentary means. Many people outside the Labour party think that we are foolish, indeed stupid, to believe that that is possible. Unless the Home Secretary makes it clear in the Bill that any legal political activities that might call for the removal of capitalism—not the violent overthrow of capitalism—are consistent with the Bill, we shall always believe that the security services will be interested in the activities or Labour party Members and Labour Governments if those Labour Governments are determined to abolish capitalism and replace it with Socialism. That is what we are interested in protecting.
8.15 pm
As I have said, there are many who do not believe that Parliament can be used to achieve Socialism in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said in his book "A Very British Coup", when a;


Labour Government threaten the status quo and the capitalist system, they will be destabilised. That is when the extra-parliamentary forces of the Conservative party will start to mobilise themselves in order to destabilise that Government. That is the time when many Labour Members consider that the belief that many Conservative Members say that they have in parliamentary democracy will be stripped away. They will support parliamentary democracy as long as that means the status quo or capitalism. As soon as it means Socialism, we could be accused of undermining parliamentary democracy and so fall foul of the Bill.
I do not expect the Home Secretary to do anything to facilitate the passage of Socialism in Britain through parliamentary or any other means, but those who believe that Parliament can be used to achieve fundamental change in our society have a right to try to achieve that fundamental change. In the end, the issue will be decided at the ballot box. The electorate will decide, not the secret service agencies or the extra-parliamentary forces of the Conservative party.
Amendment No. 47 and all those that seek to prevent the use of violence to overthrow systems that we would support should be enshrined in the Bill. But we are suspicious that, despite all that the Home Secretary has said at the Dispatch Box this evening—no doubt he means it seriously and sincerely — he is not prepared to incorporate it in the Bill. He cannot blame us for suspecting that he does not believe what he has said today and that he has no intention of enshrining it in the Bill.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West): This issue has roused much passion in the Committee. It has been an interesting debate and I hope that there will be some movement by the Government. The matter has been considered in a completely non-partisan way. It is almost a House of Commons issue. Parliament should have its wishes taken into account in this matter and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the amendment.
The Bill has been dealt with in a rush. It has had only two days in Committee, yet there is so much to discuss. There is little in the Bill on civil liberties, and the fact that threats to national security do not include lawful advocacy, protest and dissent, must be in the Bill if we are to make any progress on civil liberties. Undoubtedly, the Committee wants change, so I hope that the Home Secretary will do that.
Unlike some other hon. Members, I believe that the Home Secretary has not written off the matter. I listened carefully to his words and he said that we cannot be sure today. I hope that the Home Secretary will give further consideration to the matter and I believe that the House expects him to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) spoke passionately about the matter and I know that he carried the Committee with him. I believe that, secretly, he carried the Home Secretary with him.
What does the Home Secretary consider to be the mechanisms open to us? This is a Committee of the whole House, which is a fairly unusual procedure. The Bill will not have a Report stage, so how can we deal with this matter?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In Committee.

Mr. Randall: The Minister says something about the Committee. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I feel strongly that we should deal with this matter in the House of Commons rather than rely on the House of Lords, so will the Home Secretary tell us how we can give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Randall: I should welcome the Home Secretary's comments about further consideration.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wonder whether—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Norman Hogg): Order. I am not entirely certain that the hon. Gentleman has given way. If he tells me that he has, I shall allow the intervention.

Mr. Randall: I think, Mr. Hogg, that my hon. Friend caught me before I reached the full stop. I give way.

Mr. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is not guaranteed that there will be no Report stage? However. the signs are ominous because the Government have not tabled any amendments and unless an amendment is carried in Committee the Bill will not have a Report stage. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to facilitate a Report stage by accepting one amendment. I believe that it is even possible for the Government to table a procedural motion. Will my hon. Friend press the Home Secretary and persuade him that it would be better to have a Report stage, where action can be taken, rather than to go on to Third Reading, in which hon. Members can merely vote for or against the Bill? I imagine that it has already been fixed up through the usual channels to have a day's debate for Third Reading, but it would be better to use that day for Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Randall: I know that my hon. Friend is good on procedural maters. I hope, therefore, that following the point that he has made, the Home Secretary will accept the amendment. It is important that something should be done tonight. From what the Home Secretary said earlier, I believe that he may not want to rush into any action on this tonight. That has caused me some confusion. I am trying to make some optimistic sounds and I am taking the Home Secretary's words at face value. If the Home Secretary requires time to consider the suggestion, it seems that the Government will not accept an amendment tonight. The Committee is in a dilemma.
I would like the Home Secretary to explain the possible options for accepting, in particular, amendment No. 47. The Committee, unquestionably, supports that amendment. The existing wording in the Bill is open to subjective interpretation. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, expect to say that the Committee supports amendment No. 47 and the Home Secretary would do the Committee a serious disservice were he not to accept it. I believe that, in his heart of hearts, he wants to accept the amendment. It is a step in the right direction inasmuch as it concerns civil liberties—unlike the Bill. It would be good for the Committee and the country if the Home Secretary were to accept amendment No. 47.

Mr. Maclennan: Almost no hon. Member has raised a voice against amendment No. 47. The only hon. Member


who has sought to reject it is, of course, the Home Secretary. However, he is duty bound to listen to the voice of the Committee, which has been virtually unanimous on the matter. The problem has arisen because the Home Secretary has sought to incorporate in statute guidelines that have been used hitherto for the conduct of the Security Service. However appropriate the guidelines may have been for a non-statutory body—and one must call into question whether they were appropriate, in view of the embarrassments to the Security Service that there have been over the past decade from a number of its activities that took place improperly, as no one denies—it is not appropriate to incorporate them in legislation. All legislation that empowers must be precise in its language and make clear which categories of behaviour are legal and which are not.
The Home Secretary has said that he does not want to define the phrase "national security" and that is why he has rejected the approach in amendment No. 47. He has said that he does not wish to define national security because he believes that there are circumstances that cannot be taken care of, by definition, in advance. That is not so. There are no circumstances that are incapable of being provided for if the language used is sufficiently broad to cover any action that constitutes a threat to national security. Because the Home Secretary will not define national security, an immense door has been opened to abuse. It is not part of my case—nor of the case of those who have tabled the amendments—to suggest that abuse is our main concern in setting up a statutory basis for the Security Service. Our concern is that we should have a Security Service that is effective, efficient and accountable and that protects the nation against threats to its life and well-being, which we all recognise exist. If we say simply that the service exists to protect the nation and national security, we open the door to subjective judgments about wherein national security lies, and the definition of what is a threat to national security may become so wide that abuse is inevitable.
I do not accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the Home Secretary is a naturally liberal man. However, I believe that he is an extremely intelligent man who uses language with care and precision. I think that he has confused the issue slightly by suggesting that there is a definition of national security in the illustrative phrases which follow the words "in particular". He seems to be suggesting that the meaning of "national security" is set out in the references to
threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage…the activities of agents of foreign powers and…actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy.
Those phrases do not constitute a definition. They are only illustrations; they are examples of threats to security. They in no way qualify the general statement that it is the function of the Security Service to protect national security. The provision is too widely drawn, and in putting the Security Service on to a statutory basis Parliament has a duty to say what it means by national security.
8.30 pm
These matters are capable of very subjective judgments. Perhaps in this debate we have sometimes lost sight of the fact that we are talking about a use of powers by the Security Service which in any other circumstances would be regarded as illegal—in some cases, as a flagrant violation of the civil liberties of our citizens. In those

circumstances, we need a definition—albeit a broad definition—of national security if we are not to open a door to abuse which we shall have great difficulty in closing against it subsequently.
The Home Secretary says that he has sought to incorporate the concept of subversion set out in the Lord Harris of Greenwich definition. I put it to him, in all humility, that he has not achieved that. In the matter of the construction of language, I believe that he has seriously altered the definition of subversion given by Lord Harris of Greenwich. In the provision that refers to
actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means
the Home Secretary has omitted the other half of the Lord Harris of Greenwich definition, which was that such actions had to threaten the safety or well-being of the state. The exclusion of that qualification means that we have no objective test of whether the actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy are such that they constitute a danger or whether they are simply perceived as such by their perpetrators.
Perhaps in the light of my earlier strictures about the absence of definition of national security, the failure to define subversion in a broadly acceptable way is not of great importance. I think that the Home Secretary wished to perpetuate the definition of subversion accepted by successive Home Secretaries which was set out to the Home Affairs Committee in 1984–85 by his predecessor. I hope that he will reconsider his earlier answer because I believe that the matter is of some importance.
When Ministers have taken great care to reflect their intentions in statute and have chosen words that they believe have served well in the past, they are naturally reluctant to review these matters. However, in the simple matter of statutory construction, the Minister has not achieved what he said he set out to achieve. I hope that for that reason, if not for the wider reason that he is willing to accept some form of definition of national security— which I should prefer to be his reason—he will undertake to look again on Report at the definition of subversion and perhaps agree to accept my amendment No. 74, which does not go to the definition of national security but simply seeks to incorporate the definition of subversion as part of a concept that has stood the test of time, and stood it well. Incidentally, it would also allow the wider consideration of other matters on Report. I cannot see how the Home Secretary can resist that suggestion, as it seeks to fulfil the objectives that he himself expressed support for earlier.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Hogg. Reference has been made to a Report stage. As I understand it, however, no provision has been made for a Report stage. This is obviously an extremely important matter, and the circumstances have clearly been altered, largely as a result of the Home Secretary's statement. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows the feeling of the Opposition, and among some Conservative Members, that there is a need for a Report stage. I wonder whether you could help us, Mr. Hogg.

The Temporary Chairman: A Bill can have a Report stage only if it is amended. Those are the only circumstances in which a Report stage would be possible.

Mr. Aitken: I intervene to throw my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a lifeline in the shape of a constructive


suggestion. He needs a lifeline because this Committee stage has developed into a true House of Commons exchange of views. My right hon. Friend is in the unfortunate position of the man down a deep hole all by himself, while the rest of the Committee has been making a series of valid criticisms about the highly unsatisfactory way in which the clause has been drafted. My right hon. Friend seems to acknowledge his own unsatisfactory position to some degree. He read out a rather helpful statement, which had the unhelpful dimension to it that it is not included in the Bill.
We are now faced with a clause that includes no definition of national security. I said on Second Reading that this is a badly drafted Bill. Following this Committee stage we can all say "Amen" to that. Clause I must win the prize as one of the worst drafted clauses in the history of modern legislation. I wonder whether any recent Bill has included a rhetorical flourish which the phrase "in particular" constitutes. It is as though someone were addressing a loyal group of enthusiastic supporters. In effect, all the words after "national security" are merely a rhetorical flourish—a mere illustration. The words "in particular" could perfectly well be replaced by the words "for example" or "by way of illustration". The words "singing, dancing and tightrope walking" might just as well replace the solemn definition
espionage, terrorism and sabotage
The list of activities is merely an extravagant addition, by way of illustration, to the central phrase, and the only phrase which matters —"national security"—remains without definition.
I cannot believe that the other place—with so many minds learned in the law and with so many experienced in parliamentary exchanges—will view the clause with anything other than the grave concern that has emerged in our long proceedings today. I suggest that when the Bill gets to the other place my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gives an indication that the Government will consider carefully the criticisms that have been made with a view to improving this unsatisfactory definition. At the moment "national security" is undefined. Therefore, the Bill is, in effect, giving a blank cheque not just to the well-meaning Home Secretary of the day, but perhaps to an MI5 in the future which could exercise its formidable powers in distasteful and sinister ways quite undreamt of in the present House of Commons.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to push his own Ministers to see whether the Home Secretary is even contemplating bringing something forward in another place along the lines that he has heard us all suggest this evening? Will the hon. Gentleman push his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is more or less taking the words out of my mouth. With my customary courtesy, I am endeavouring to give an elegant version of a push to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but he does not often take my advice or suggestions in such matters. However, I hope that he is a good enough parliamentarian to concede that this is an unsatisfactory situation in which to leave the clause. We have had a long debate and the Home Secretary himself must feel some degree of unease,

otherwise he would not have popped up with that convenient definition to reassure us all that the Bill may mean something different from what it says.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take heed of the sentiment of the Committee, which goes right across party lines, and say that in another place he will at least be willing to look at the possibility of accepting a better definition of "national security" than the one that we have now.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to return briefly to this group of amendments. Like my hon. Friends, I feel strongly that the Home Secretary should be prepared to put the words that he read out to the House on the face of the Bill. It would help our proceedings considerably this evening if he could make clear at the Dispatch Box either that he will facilitate a Report stage or that he will make that provision in the House of Lords.
I wonder whether you, Mr. Hogg, could give me some guidance on amendment No. 82. I hoped that the Home Secretary would spend at least a minute or two commenting on it, but I realise that he had a lot of other issues to reply to. I wonder now whether you, Mr. Hogg, will allow a separate vote on that amendment at the appropriate point in our consideration of the Bill. If the Home Secretary catches your eye, Mr. Hogg, in a minute or two, perhaps he will say a few words in reply to my comments which would mean that it would not be necessary for me to press for a vote on that amendment. I assume that as we are in Committee it will be possible for us to have votes on other amendments that are grouped with this first group today if we want to do so when we reach the appropriate point.

The Temporary Chairman: That would be a matter for whoever is in the Chair when those amendments are reached.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving some explanation of what his own clause meant. I had worked on the assumption that by changing to a statutory basis we were trying to put in the legislation a clear mandate of the purpose, functions and powers of our Security Service and of the way in which it defends our liberal democracy, whatever difficulties that gives to some hon. Members in its interpretation.
However, what we have learned today from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is that
The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security".
That is the definition of the function. Nothing limits it, but my right hon. Friend referred to some judgments, opinions, directives, letters and past views of the remit within that—the definition of subversion. I must advise hon. Members of all parties that what was written in the past and what the intentions then were do not matter, nor do the intentions of my right hon. Friend. We are legislating for a law that can be interpreted by courts and what comes before the courts is
The function of the Service shall be national security".
But what is national security? It is whatever the incumbent of the office of Home Secretary or of the Prime Ministership determines it to be. It is an unlimited concept. There is nothing in the Bill to limit it. What does that phrase do? It gives the security services the right to enter premises and to remove documents. That is made lawful by the Home Secretary issuing a warrant on the ground


that it is necessary for national security. But what is national security? We do not know. It is whatever the incumbent of the Home Office says.
8.45 pm
That is our anxiety and it is genuine. If we are to stand for anything in this House, that anxiety must go right across the nation. When we give powers to police authorities we say what those powers are about. The Home Secretary said, "I approach this Bill somewhat differently from some hon. Members or from some of my hon. Friends." How right—he does approach it differently. However, the Bill does not set out what the security service cannot do; it sets out what it can do. We are told in the Bill that the security services can do almost anything as long as it is what the Home Secretary determines that they may do on the ground of national security. The Home Secretary would say, "We do not intend to say what they may not do." When we look at any area of our national life and at security in any form, for example, the police force, we have the rule of law and we set out what people may not do, but there is no such injunction in the Bill. Unless I am wrong and unless the Home Secretary points that out, that is an extraordinary position and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for explaining it.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may then go on to say, "Look, here I have a carefully worded statement which will show you that we have always had good intent." I accept that that may have been so in the past and that every Home Secretary that ever was scrupulously went through every activity personally authorising and agreeing it, and only doing good acts and making smiling signs, and being benign in the context of our democracy.
However, we are going further than that. We are giving power to future generations and to future Home Secretaries and no one can assume that they will necessarily he benign. I advise the Conservative party and my hon. Friends that, although we stand for the rule of law and for our fear of the state—I have been elected three times because of the power of the state and in the belief that we were giving power back to the people—we are now saying that the state shall have every power. But who is the state? It shall he whoever is Home Secretary at any given moment. That may be a power that we shall come to regret because no court can question the basis on which this power is granted.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Perhaps this point has been mentioned already but it follows immediately and most importantly from the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Is there not a grey area in the mind of any Minister between the security of the state and the security of the Administration of the day? There are fundamental democratic differences beween the two about which the Bill, as far as I can see, makes no distinction.

Mr. Tony Banks: It has been drafted by Lewis Carroll.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said because that has been more or less at the heart of our discussions all afternoon. We have tried to set down—it seemed to have some support from all corners of this horse—I mean house but it could be a horse if we were ridden—that there should be a limiting mandate which would try

to get out the specific areas of threat in a general way. Although one accepts that it cannot be precise in every detail, it should be a limiting mandate with a limiting clause. The Maxwell Fyfe directive has a limiting clause. We want something like that enshrined in the Bill. We want the functions clearly identified and limits placed on those functions in terms of the lawful dissent which is at the heart of our democracy.
I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in a carefully considered remark said that I was right to refer to the Leander judgment. I genuinely do not now believe, having reread my right hon. Friend's clause—
The function of the Service shall be the protection of national security"—
that it will meet the contentions of the European Court. My right hon. Friend and the Government will have the greatest difficulty in any submission before the European Court of Human Rights in saying that national security is anything that the Minister deems. In a sense, that is the problem that we are experiencing at the moment. The issuing of warrants on that basis will not and does not meet our rule of law in this area.
As my right hon. Friend rightly said, these matters were based previously on prerogative power and for some reason our courts-and Sir John Donaldson —feel that the rule of law is thrown out of the window in the face of prerogative power. Now my right hon. Friend, quite rightly—everyone must applaud it —is putting that issue on a statutory basis. The very first principle, from Dicey onwards, in the law of the constitution is the rule of law. Of course, until today we could not have a statutory definition of what "national security" means because if nothing exists or if it is only under the shadow of prerogative power, one cannot legislate for a little bit of the prerogative power and say that it is still subsumed by the prerogative power because it becomes paramount to the prerogative power.
We are now asked to try to make the paramount power the legislative power. The supremacy of Parliament is enacted as if it were subordinate to and reflective of the needs of prerogative power, but with the added protection that no judge may look behind it. There is the instruction in clause 1(2) that, whatever the Home Secretary says that national security is and issues a warrant for, it is the law of the land. It is enacted by the House, with all its powers, and will reflect the sovereignty of Parliament in clause 1(2) of the Security Service Bill. I notice that in the Official Secrets Bill it is referred to as enacted in 1988, but we can correct that, no doubt, to 1989. This Bill does not meet our contentions as to the balance of the rights of citizens. Again and again my favourite Home Secretary is educating me on the constitution in an almost malign way, because on every issue he is not weighing up that important balance between the rights of the citizen, the rights of this House and the rule of law, which is why believe that my right hon. Friend should reconsider the fact that there should be a statutory definition as to what constitutes national security.

Mr. Hurd: I have listened carefully to what has been said since I intervened last time. I understand clearly and I have never cast any doubts on the concerns felt on either side of the House about this matter. In my earlier. intervention I tried to deal carefully with both the main points which have, as it were, re-emerged in the speeches of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr.


Maclennan) and other hon. Members, and especially in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I set out earlier the restrictions. It is not a matter of the Home Secretary saying that they exist—they are there in the construction of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and other right hon. and hon. Members will be able to see that tomorrow in print. Any interested right hon. or hon. Members who re-read my speech on Second Reading will find—in slightly shorter terms, I agree —in column 1115 of the Official Report for 15 December 1988 the same exposition of what the Bill is about as I have made today in response to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I do not believe that there is a procedural difficulty here of the kind that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) indicated. Indeed, the record should show that he spoke with something of a grin on his face.
We are in Committee of the whole House, and the Committee has spent today discussing a set of amendments to the Bill. I have tried patiently and at length to cover all the points, which I believe I have done, except for the point about economic well-being, about which I am courteously reminded. I believe that I can say quite honestly that the basis of the Bill and the point about national security being a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole really makes any amendment on that matter otiose.
I have set out at substantial length, point by point, why I believe that as we move towards statute the definitions and restrictions of clause 1(3) are a better way of proceeding than the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the Opposition have put forward. I believe that that is right and will turn out to be right. I was not seeking in the statement, which was treated as though it were something new, to divert attention or to add a little piece of sweetness at the top of the Bill, but I was actually defining what was in the Bill on the matters about which the House has shown concern.
The House is in Committee. It has choices before it. If anyone wishes to press these amendments to a Division, we shall see how the Committee feels about them. When I referred to not being able to make up our minds today, I was referring to the effort made in amendment No. 47 to do that and to set out in statute today an exhaustive definition of the ways in which the Security Service should work. It was in that context that I used that phrase. There are, of course, further amendments and other important parts of the Bill to consider, but if the House approves the Bill it will go to another place, where they have eyes to see and ears to hear, and it will be considered. I cannot go further and say that we shall reconsider it, because that would give my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who made the suggestion, an impression that I do not want to give because I believe that it would be unfair. The Bill as drafted achieves the objectives which I stated on Second Reading and again today. I believe that I have shown that. It is now for this House and then the other place to decide whether they agree with that or whether they prefer some alternative formulation.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary explain why all hon. Members who have spoken, on both sides of the

Committee, have felt the need to incorporate into the Bill the interpretation that he actually gave? Why does he believe we want that? Apart from the Home Secretary, not one hon. Member has argued against that. Has nothing that has been said on either side of the Committee given rise to one smidgen of thought in the Home Secretary's head that he should perhaps think about this a bit more and come back with an announcement later?

Mr. Hurd: I have listened carefully. The hon. Gentleman will admit that I have hardly left the Chamber. I have tried to deal with the points, but I am not persuaded by them. The Committee has been reasonably well attended for a debate of this kind but, of course, not overwhelmingly. A good many supporters of the Bill in its present form have not found their voices today. I make no complaint about that. That is normal. However, I am sure from my conversations with them that they have thought deeply about the Bill—as deeply as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has. I believe that if I amplified my answer I should be indulging in vain repetition.
I believe that the Committee has obtained from this Dispatch Box not an addition to the Bill or a change in the Bill, but a rather fuller statement than I gave on Second Reading of what the Bill contains and does not contain on the issues that those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have emphasised. That appears to be a profitable and useful use of an afternoon and early part of an evening by this Committee. I believe that I must rest on that.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 221

Division No. 34]
[8.58 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crowther, Stan


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cryer, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eadie, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galbraith, Sam


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Graham, Thomas


Cartwright, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Howells, Geraint

Questions accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill>

Clause 2

THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
'(1A) The Director-General shall be appointed to hold office for a term not exceeding five years; but a previous appointment shall not affect a person's eligibility for a second term of office provided that no person shall hold office for more than ten years in aggregate.'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 20, after 'obtained', insert 'nor retained'.

Mr. Shepherd: This is a short and not very important amendment, except in one respect. The amendment affects the terms of employment in a sense of the director-general. In the translation of the amendments from upstairs or in their transfer to the amendment sheet we appear to have lost the word "strictly" but that is not very important in view of the Government's spirit in these matters. Clause 2(2)(a) says:
that there are arrangements for securing that no information is obtained by the Service except so far as necessary for the proper discharge of its functions or disclosed by it except so far as necessary for that purpose or for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime; and".
Amendment No. 49 is purely a business amendment to ensure that a director-general of the Security Service shall not be so immersed in his work that he is in the job for ever. The best example of that is the head of the FBI. Mr. Hoover was in office for so many years that many people thought he was dictating the course of American internal security. No one ever dared to challenge what he did on the basis that he knew too much about people.
The more important of the two amendments would ensure that no information was obtained or retained. When one is engaged in extremely intrusive necessary investigation, such as phone tapping, one will obtain additional information that has no bearing on unrefined, unrestricted national security—to use the Home Secretary's words. It seems wholly appropriate that material that has no bearing on the defence of what we call liberal democracy should not be retained. Our amendment is a protective addition to the clause.

Mr. John Patten: My answer to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for amendment No. 49 is that, given the seniority of the appointment, it is unlikely in practice that we would have service by one individual for more than a total of 10 years. But I suppose it is not inconceivable that an individual might be appointed relatively early in his or her career and was then found eminently suitable to exercise continued and consistent responsibility for the work of the service over a period of years that might stretch for somewhat longer than 10 years.
What is the merit of a statutory limitation on the term of an appointment? I suppose it is not inconceivable that just when the director-general was bumping up against, say, a 10-year statutory limit, there might be some possible state of war or emergency, when it would be a millstone round the neck of the national interest to have to move the person, who knew what was in the interest of the service at

that time and who had the experience to deal with the problem. I do not believe there is a particularly strong case for taking such a step.

Mr. Allason: Although it would be unlikely, as my hon. Friend said, may I ask if he is aware that the first director-general of the Security Service stayed in office for 32 years?

Mr. Patten: I was aware of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that he put more store by amendment No. 50 on the retaining of information. We do not believe the amendment would help intelligence work in this country, although I assure my hon. Friend that we appreciate the concerns of individuals, and I shall come later to the question of information about individuals. The amendment would create an unnecessary requirement on the service and could under certain circumstances leave the service shorn of parts of its memory which could be vital to the conduct of operations at a later date.
One safeguard in the Bill is that the service can obtain information only that is relevant to its functions. That is a considerable safeguard. A second safeguard is that it can disclose it only for the purposes of those functions or for the additional function of detecting serious crime, and hon. Members will approve of that. Those safeguards go to the nub of the question, which is how and why the service acquires information and what it will do with it once it has it. Different considerations come into play in deciding the grounds for continuing to retain information.
A person now reviewing a piece of information properly obtained some time ago may conclude that it does not meet the strict criteria of the amendment. It is then disposed of, perhaps shredded, only for it to be discovered at a later date that the key part of some complex jigsaw—and some intelligence sagas last for many years—has, alas, been thrown away. That could act against the national interest. So statutory safeguards are built into the Bill in relation to why information is obtained.
There is also a statutory safeguard for the aggrieved individual, and we do not take such concerns lightly. If an individual were to feel aggrieved that the Security Service was wrong to continue to hold on to information about him, he could make a complaint to the tribunal. That is an important safeguard. Even if the tribunal found out at that stage and informed the alleged complainant or complainants that it thought the Security Service had been reasonable in initiating the complaint against the individual or individuals, it could still refer the issue of the need to retain the information to the commissioner who could investigate the matter. He would be able to consider the intelligence arguments and come to a view that he could then report to my right hon. Friend.
The Bill properly reflects the necessary intelligence requirement, but it also ensures that any points of concern can be investigated and reported. With that reassurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his amendments to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
'(3A)—(a) Subject to paragraph (b) below and in so far as it is strictly necessary for the proper discharge of the service's functions, the Service may enter into arrangements with

(i) a Government Department;


(ii) a police force

for help and assistance in carrying out the service's duties and functions save that no arrangement which relates to or includes entry on or interference with property shall be lawful unless it is authorised by a warrant issued under section 3 of this Act.

(b) Any such arrangement mentioned in (a) above shall only be made with the approval of the Solicitor General.
(c) A copy of written arrangements mentioned in (a) above shall be sent to the Inspector General and the Review Committee.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New Clause 6

Delegation of powers to other security services
'Nothing in this Act shall impower the security service to act as empowered by warrant in this Act through the agency of or by delegation of their powers to the security services of any other country.'.

New Clause 7

Delegation of powers to police force
'Nothing in this Act shall impower the security service to act as empowered by warrant in this Act through the agency of or by delegation of their powers to any police force.'.

Mr. Shepherd: The Security Service uses its foot soldiers, special branch, for this purpose. As this is a statutory arrangement by which we legalise the necessary entry to premises, which was traditionally called burglary and bugging, it is appropriate that the status of the operation should come under the remit of the Home Secretary in respect of warrants issued under clause 3 of the Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide power for the Security Service to enter into such arrangements with special branch or with a Government Department and to ensure that the service does not bypass the arrangement. We believe that we would have set the measure in a statutory framework if there had been the necessary checks and balances, an independent review and a definition of the functions of the service, other than in respect of blanket national security, and the inclusion of the necessary elements to make the measure acceptable to the European Court. The Security Service could not then seek to bypass the requirement of receiving a warrant for entry into premises by going to friends in special branch, for example, who are under the supervision of the chief constables of the counties and may obtain the necessary information by other means. Some Conservative and Opposition Members are trying to obtain a balanced Bill through a series of balances and checks.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), although new clauses 6 and 7 press in the opposite direction—seeking to probe the Government and obtain clarification about the relationship between our Security Service and the security services of other countries.
I do not like the idea that the security services of other countries operate in the United Kingdom, but I accept that if we wish to stop international terrorism there may be occasions when another friendly country is taking the lead in trying to shadow a terrorist group and find out what it is doing, and it may be logical and necessary for that country to carry out some activities in this country to collect information that will be shared between us. If

another organisation operates in this country, it is essential that it should operate by our laws. Will the Minister make it clear that if illegal activity is deemed necessary it will be carried out under the provisions for a warrant rather than simply by some foreign agent acting off his own bat?
My second point concerns the delegation and use of special branch. Hon. Members have discussed how much the Security Service uses the special branch of individual police forces. My impression is that it varies from police force to police force depending on the capability and size of the special branch concerned.
I hope that the Minister will state clearly the relationship between the warrants required under this legislation, the position of special branch within individual police forces and the operations carried out by friendly Governments who share a common interest in collecting intelligence about terrorist activities.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support amendment No. 44 proposed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) but I wish to speak to new clause 6, which states:
Nothing in this Act shall impower the security services to act as empowered by warrant in this Act through the agency of or by delegation of their powers to the security services of any other country.
Tonight I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. John Stockwell, an ex-member of the Central Intelligence Agency, who was speaking in a Meeting Room in the House. He has written a good book about the CIA. That agency has bombed, bugged, assassinated, tortured and pillaged its way around most of the developing nations of the world in the interests of supporting American imperialism. It has done so without the consent of Congress. Mr. Stockwell resigned from the CIA because he knew that an operation in Angola 10 years ago was being carried out against the decision of Congress. He felt that that was not democratic. He also pointed out that the CIA, wherever it operated, developed a drugs ring, a golden triangle, in which it used CIA facilities to hand over drugs to various people, including the Mafia, in order to further its interests. I do not want our security services becoming involved with the CIA because it has a miserable and dirty record.
The previous Labour Government found that our security services were working with the CIA to the extent that when it wanted Agee and Hosenball expelled from this country they, to my everlasting regret, carried out its instructions and requests. No doubt our security services, working with their sister organisation, briefed the then Home Secretary on the dangers of Philip Agee, telling him that Agee was giving away information about the American security service and therefore should be excluded from our nation. Philip Agee was revealing secrets about the CIA such as those that I have just mentioned. It is essential that our Security Service should be excluded from working with the CIA.
The CIA is courteous—it does not carry out operations in our country without notifying MI5 and obtaining its agreement. Mr. Stockwell said that during an operation in Katanga of which he was in charge the CIA obtained the support of our Security Service to ensure the transit of mercenaries to be used against the Government that the CIA wished to usurp. The mercenaries went through Heathrow without any scrutiny or checks as a result of the involvement of our security services.
If that had become public knowledge, I dare say that there would have been a hue and cry because our citizens, quite properly, do not like such things. They do not like our security services becoming involved in illegal operations conducted by foreign powers, whether friendly or otherwise. Therefore, the Minister has a duty to accept new clause 6 in particular, to assure our citizens that the secret services are not involved in destabilising operations working against democracy and leading to serious situations and loss of life by linking our facilities to foreign operations in Britain or abroad.
9.30 pm
Whether the warrants would be issued to facilitate criminal or illegal activities, it is quite extraordinary that we are debating in the House of Commons the way in which Ministers can permit people to carry out what ordinarily would be criminal activities which we strongly criticise in a secret service. Although some people within those secret organisations may start off with the best intentions, because they are not accountable their enormous power can be abused. If that is done in conjunction with other people or organisations which have lied to Congress and got away with murder, sometimes literally, when it is revealed—not in Britain which is far too secretive, but in the United States which is much more open—our name would be dragged in and our personnel would be revealed as having been involved, perhaps even in deceiving the Minister about the purpose of the warrant and not revealing any intercontinental connection that might exist.
I should have thought that new clause 6 was very straightforward. It seeks simply to make sure that the Minister exercises his powers solely within the United Kingdom, that he could not be subject to any abuse and would therefore be accountable to the House which is passing the legislation. Unless some amendments are made, when the legislation is passed there will be no link of accountability enabling us to have future debates of this nature. The subject will be closed. The warrants will be issued behind the closed doors of Whitehall and in secrecy. The reports will be presented in private, and members of the Security Service will be cuddling up to the Minister and explaining how everything is justified. The director-general will be presenting a very pleasing picture of the important work of the Security Service, and we shall be unable to make a judgment on the matter. Therefore, it is important that the Minister should say, "Some of you do not like the legislation"—that will include me—"but we think that it is necessary and in the operation of the legislation we shall ensure that the warrants are issued only for operations within the United Kingdom and there will be no connection with any security services from any other nations".

Mr. John Patten: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said in his brief introduction, and to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I recall that the hon. Gentleman raised the same issues on Second Reading and that I tried in my speech to reply to at least one of the points on that occasion.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the hon. Members for

Denton and Reddish—and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who appears to have come from quite an interesting meeting—that new clause 6 is not necessary, and I hope that I can do so briefly. I believe that the new clauses and amendment No. 44 are not necessary.
They could impair the service's effectiveness, and they overlook the fact that the commissioner, whose role and functions are set down in the Bill, will be all the time at my right hon. Friend's elbow and looking over his shoulder. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish acknowledges that, from time to time, the Security Service must necessarily maintain contacts with foreign security and intelligence agencies. Such contact is vitally important in defeating, for example, IRA terrorism—as the recent seizure of shiploads of arms has shown. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman indicates assent.
Threats of terrorism and espionage are international. They can be identified only if like-minded agencies deal with them together. In the same way—this point interests the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—the Security Service must work closely with the police from time to time, where the service's functions and the responsibilities of the police coincide. I again cite terrorism as a classic example where such co-operation is right.
Where others undertake work that is relevant to the service's functions and objectives, they will do so on the basis of their own powers and responsibilities. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that that is the context in which the Committee needs to consider the amendments. There are powerful and effective safeguards in the warrant procedure provided by clause 3, which we have not yet reached. I do not believe that the amendments will add significantly to them. A warrant application must be made by the Security Service, and it can be granted only if the Secretary of State is personally satisfied that the action is necessary to the functions of the Security Service—not to those of anyone else. The action must be to obtain information likely to be of substantial value in respect of the service's functions and which cannot be reasonably obtained by any other means. The warrant must specify both the action and the property. Furthermore, the commissioner is there to ensure that there is adherence to those criteria.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have been greatly assured by my hon. Friend's comments about the commissioner. May we know whether the commissioner has any powers to undertake supervision of the operations of other security services operating in this country at the request of our own service?

Mr. Patten: I was about to give an assurance to my hon. Friend and to the Committee that the Security Service is the only security and intelligence agency responsible for undertaking operations involving actions of the kind that will be authorised under the Bill. That was to be my closing note. With that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend and Opposition Members will not press the amendment or the new clauses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 2, line 9, at end add
'and shall make such sections of his report public as he sees fit'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 55, in page 2, line 9, at end add
'and shall cause the Inspector General to be given a copy of each such report'.
No. 93, in page 2, line 9, at end add—
'(5) The Director-General shall make an annual report to Parliament'.
No. 87, in page 3, line 6, at end insert
'and the person to whom the information relates shall be informed of the Secretary of State's approval and the reasons for which the approval was given when information is disclosed in accordance with this subsection.'.
No. 85, in clause 3, page 3, line 4, at end add—
'(8) 10 years after the commencement of this Act and each year thereafter the Secretary of State shall review all warrants issued 10 years previously and shall compile a report to Parliament revealing as much information as he feels appropriate about the nature and the extent of warrants issued 10 years previously.'.
No. 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, after 'Prime Minister', insert
'and such report shall include:

(i) the number of telephone intercept warrants granted;
(ii) the number of other listening devices utilized;
(iii) the number of warrants to interfere with property granted;
(iv) the number of disciplinary proceedings taken;
(v) the number of complaints referred to the tribunal;
(vi) the number of Positive Vetting referrals handled;
(vii) an account of Security Service opinion on current threats ad priorities;
(viii) a case history relevant to the Service's work in the preceding year from each Security Service Branch; and
(ix) a statement from the Director-General relating to any significant changes in practice.'.

Mr. Bennett: Amendment No. 83 suggests that part of the director-general's report could, in certain circumstances, be made public. Clearly it is intended that the report will be given to the Home Secretary and to the Prime Minister. One of the reasons for the Bill is considerable public disquiet about the way in which the Security Service has appeared to operate in recent years. The Government's hope is that by putting the service on a statutory basis public concern will be allayed. However, the unsatisfactory way in which much of the Bill is drafted, which was highlighted in our earlier debate, will not allay that fear, and there will continue to be pressure for more and more information.
I believe that it will not be long before people in the Security Service realise that unless they are prepared to be more forthcoming about the way in which they operate, and particularly to assure the public that they do not engage in activities that have caused concern to Opposition Members, the system will fall further into disrepute. The amendment merely provides that if the director-general of the Security Service feels that it would be appropriate for parts of his report to be made public, they can be made public, but on his decision alone.
Amendment No. 85 deals with a much more complicated business—the general belief that a large number of burglaries and buggings are being carried out by the Security Service. I do not believe that the number is all that large, but from now on we shall have the opportunity for them to be recorded by warrants. There will, however, be no mechanism enabling the general public to know how many warrants are issued per year and how the process takes place. The amendment suggests that after 10 years there should be an opportunity for the number and extent of warrants to be made public.
In the vast majority of cases, what posed a security threat 10 years earlier will not continue to do so, and it would therefore be perfectly reasonable to provide some information about the extent of Security Service operations then. Clearly some operations will still be going on, and to divulge information about them would cause problems. I have therefore inserted the safeguard that, at the second date, it would be the Home Secretary who would decide whether it was appropriate to make the information public. Thus the original Home Secretary would give permission for a warrant to he issued, and 10 years later the information would become public unless the then Home Secretary believed that, in the interests of the Security Service and of the nation's security, it should not be made public.
I tabled the amendment largely to probe the Government's intention. I understand that in many security instances the 30-year rule does not operate and information is withheld from the public for even longer. I do not feel that the totality of operations should be kept from the public for as long as 30 years. This seems to me an issue on which Parliament has a right of scrutiny.

Mr. Cryer: My amendment No. 93 simply provides that at the end of clause 2 should be added the following provision:
The Director-General shall make an annual report to Parliament".
Curiously, I have more faith in Parliament than perhaps it deserves, and I believe that when we talk about democracy we ought to practise it. I do not think that we should have double standards and be anti-democratic while preaching democracy. The Government claim that they support democracy, and here is an opportunity for them to put their claim into practice.
Many benefits flow from a requirement for the director-general to make an annual report to Parliament. It does not lay down what he must include: it does not provide, for example, that he must include the number of warrants issued. The director-general would be able to make the report at his discretion, and he would no doubt omit any matters that he deemed sensitive. That, after all, is the sort of job to which we appoint him.
The requirement for the director-general to make the report, however, would also push this place into a debate. We know that when what are termed sensitive areas develop the Government go through the usual channels and say, "We cannot deal with that just now", or "We shall follow the business with two Scottish orders so that the trouble-makers on the Front Bench below the Gangway do not keep the subject going for too long. We want to get rid of it—to sweep it under the carpet and out of the way."
So I think it is very useful for an obligation to be clearly put on the director-general to provide a report, because it does not say that it has to be debated but, having provided a report and put it in the House of Commons Library, there would be an opportunity to exert pressure for a debate, and then there can be that measure of accountability, as I say, without any details that the director-general regards as sensitive. The Minister would have to be briefed and answer questions on the debate, and that would provide some element of security in the minds of the citizenry that this secret organisation would be less likely to abuse its power and position.
It is always a salutary thought in all our minds that we are accountable to somebody. When we speak and vote


here we are accountable to the electorates in our constituencies. We record our votes so that we cannot say one thing in our constituencies and vote the other way here, and it helps us to clarify our minds. When I go through the Lobby—and I go through the Lobby on a number of occasions on various issues—I always try to make up my mind so that, if somebody in Bradford, South questions me about what I have done, I can provide an answer. That is a degree of accountability.
9.45 pm
Therefore, when the burgling and bugging is taking place, in addition to having to justify matters to the Minister or to senior civil servants—because in the Bill as drafted the Minister is not the only one who can authorise the warrants, and we shall come to that very shortly—they will have to think, "Our director-general is going to have to put a report before Parliament. There is going to be a debate." It may be a bit of a nuisance that Members of Parliament discuss their affairs, and that is no doubt the view they will have. Nonetheless, we shall have that opportunity.
If we do not, what will happen? What has happened in the past? Several years ago there was an Adjournment debate on the security services. The various boxes were full of eminent people. The Home Secretary appeared for an Adjournment debate because it was deemed to be so unusual, so electrifying that the security services should actually be debated, and all the "big guns" turned out. That debate lasted just half an hour. It was not Government time; it was private Members' time and, of course, devices like the Consolidated Fund can be used. But I remind the House that, because of a consensus agreement between the parties, the Consolidated Fund is no longer a Consolidated Fund debate; it is a structured debate, fixed by Mr. Speaker; it is a series of Adjournment debates, and the ability of Back Benchers to scrutinise has thereby been diminished.
The Minister will resist putting this in the Bill, because Governments do not like too much scrutiny of anything. They prefer to stay in their offices in Whitehall and have a few jolly half-day debates in here, when they can get a few cheers from their Back Benchers, and limit it to that. However, we are concerned here with accountability over a very serious section of our Government forces, and it seems to me not unreasonable therefore that we should be able to hold them to account by having a debate and impose an obligation on the director-general to provide an annual report to Parliament.
I hope that there will be an opportunity to vote on this, because I would be interested to see those who are actually prepared to say that this House should be accountable and not just a place where a few empty words echo, nothing is done, and at 10 o'clock the Government bring out their troops and destroy what improvements might have been made to a piece of legislation. I shall be surprised if the Minister accepts the amendment but, if he has the concept of parliamentary democracy at heart, I would have thought it does no "damage" in his terms, because the director-general has the responsibility of providing the report; he can be selective. However, it does provide an opportunity for some sort of accountability to this House,

so that those Members of Parliament who are interested can have that opportunity and exercise it. That is a reasonable request.

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the Committee's attention to amendment No. 12. In view of the loss last night of any chance of parliamentary oversight, that amendment is extremely important. Some hon. Members have mentioned how important it is to have a report and the Government are to be congratulated on requiring the Security Service commissioner to offer up an annual report. That is important, but the Bill has one fundamental flaw in that it omits any detail about what should be considered by the commissioner in his report. That is vital.
Last night we accepted—some of us reluctantly—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's view that everything was safe in his hands. We lost the opportunity to have any parliamentary oversight. In effect, my right hon. Friend said that he and his successors would be able to cope with controlling all the other responsibilities that they have in the Home Office and be able to manage the affairs of the Security Service, and that any problems that there might have been in the past had now been put behind the Security Service.
The difficulty is that there is no suggestion about what should go into the report. In other words, the commissioner has total discretion and if he feels like it he can say virtually nothing of any relevance or interest. A vital opportunity has been lost. I draw the Committee's attention to the Canadian experience. In Canada an annual report is published by the security intelligence review committee with 10 important chapters. They are not just for voyeurs of the intelligence community, but represent a public relations exercise as well as an educational exercise. Let me explain briefly what I mean.
We have heard that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is prepared to bear the burden of supervising the Security Service without any assistance. The report that will be provided by the commissioner will go to him and the Prime Minister. But how are they to educate themselves? How are they to be well informed on the function, role and day-to-day activities of the Security Service? That surely is at the heart of accountability. Unless those two people have a firm grasp of the Security Service we shall put ourselves back in the position that we have experienced in the past when there have been mishaps—for example, when the director-general of the Security Service, Sir Percy Sillitoe, deliberately misled Attlee, and, on subsequent occasions, with Burgess and Maclean and so on.
If we can draw up some parameters for topics that should be included in the report, that would be worthwhile. That would not conflict with clause 4(7) which allows the Prime Minister to decide whether a document is of such a sensitive nature that parts of it should not be disclosed in public or to the House of Commons. That can be retained.
But is it not important, for example, to establish the number of warrants that have been issued under the Bill? The first example I list in the amendment is the number of telephone intercept warrants granted in any one year. Many of us believed that, with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, there would be greater public accountability and public knowledge about the way in which warrants were authorised and the number that were


authorised each year. Our expectations have turned out to be wrong and the amount of information that is supplied by the judge who reports annually on the interception of communications is less now than was previously available.
What about the other items that should be scrutinised, such as the number of warrants to interfere with property issued by the Home Secretary each year? That is a euphemism for burglary and it is a proper topic on which the commissioner should report to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister will not be privy to that particular information unless the Home Secretary decides to import it.
Other matters should be considered as well in the report, such as the number of internal disciplinary proceedings that take place in the Security Service. The Bettaney case demonstrates that routine disciplinary procedures take place which are of considerable importance. We know, for example, that Michael Bettaney was employed by the Security Service in spite of the fact that he had two convictions for dishonesty. We also know that he was on a bottle of whisky a day and that that information was supplied to the director-general of the Security Service, who did not deem it appropriate or necessary to disclose it to anyone else. The Home Secretary of the day was blissfully unaware of that although, within a matter of months, Bettaney had gone over the edge and was making improper approaches to a KGB officer in London. Is it not worthwhile to try to persuade the commissioner, who will be the author of the report, that such information should go regularly to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister?
The Government are to be congratulated on setting up the tribunal, but how will we know about the performance of the tribunal and how many complaints have been referred to it? How will anybody know whether a complaint has been upheld or dismissed? The Canadian system provides a good example. In Canada, the names and some other details are excluded, but individual cases are mentioned in considerable detail in the report. Similarly, now that the Security Service is disposing of its mantle of secrecy, would it not be worthwhile to try such a system, which approaches a public relations exercise? Is it not appropriate that the Security Service should give an account of its work, as the service does in Canada? Is it not appropriate that the Security Service should publish some case histories to educate the public, to explain the threat and to explain what the Security Service perceives to have been its functions and responsibilites in the preceding year?
The last topic that should be included in the report is a statement from the director-general about significant changes in practice. Technology is moving ahead all the time. We know about the interception of communications through telephone intercept warrants and we know that technology allows bugs to be inserted into property, without the need for a warrant. But technology may move on. Is it not appropriate, therefore, that the commissioner or the director-general should include in his report, sections of which will be read only by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, information to keep them up-to-date with the latest developments?
I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Sir Paul, and I am sorry for the lateness of the hour, but I believe that the Committee should consider carefully whether these topics should be included in the Bill. Are we not giving hostages to fortune—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Security Service Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Fallon.]

Security Service Bill

Considered again in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Allason: This is an important issue because we have lost the opportunity of parliamentary oversight and we have greatly increased the burden on the Home Secretary. Surely one lesson of the past must be that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the day should be well informed of the activities of the Security Service, and what better way is there to keep them informed than through an annual report that could be examined not just by them but by the whole House?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that we had lost the argument for parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that he is right in thinking that the Government will not concede that point at a later stage. They are a fortiori unlikely to concede the scrutiny by the back door for which the hon. Gentleman's amendment would provide. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is being over-optimistic if he thinks that the Government will be prepared to allow the director-general to report to the House on his duties. There is, in any event, a limitation upon the commissioner's ability to report on the Security Service.
The hon. Member for Torbay gave the impression—I do not know whether it was deliberate—that it would be within the ambit of the commissioner's duties to consider the matters set out in amendment No. 12. As the Bill stands, the commissioner has no such general authority or oversight of the Security Service. His tasks are strictly limited to the matter of warrants covered in clause 3 and to the matter of complaint set out in schedule 1. There is no responsibility upon the commissioner to consider the general practice of the Security Service that would enable him to answer questions of the kind set out in the amendment. There is no general responsibility for surveying the priorities of the service or the particular problems that the service faces, save as they may be revealed by his work in conducting the inquiries that are referred to him.

Mr. Allason: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection 4(4), which requires every member of the Security Service to supply to the commissioner whatever information he needs to discharge his function? My amendment suggests that we add those responsibilities to his function.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the Bill describes an officer's functions quite precisely in both clause 3 and in schedule 1. Those functions do not include matters of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If an officer were to have the duty of reporting to anyone, for example, to the Prime Minister within Government, or to Parliament, it would be necessary to give the commissioner a much


more wide-ranging remit than I believe it is the Government's intention to do. I do not raise that point in a spirit of carping criticism about the hon. Gentleman's intentions but simply to draw attention to the extremely limited nature of the role of the commissioner, who is not set in oversight over the conduct of the Security Service. It might reassure hon. Members if there were some independent oversight over the whole of the Security Service, but that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South has said that that is for the director-general, but the director-general is not in oversight of the service; he is the embodiment of the service. He is the executive at the apex of the structure. Therefore, he is not charged with reporting, independently, on how the service is working.
One of the great weaknesses of the Bill to which, perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Member for Torbay has drawn our attention is that there is no independent judicial or other supervising authority to look at the sort of matters that he believes should not only be supervised but reported upon to the responsible Minister and to Parliament.

Mr. John Patten: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said in his description of the provisions under the relevant clause and schedule, just as I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said, and to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said when he opened the debate on this group of amendments. However, apart from the proposals for a 10-year review—more of that later—which I do not think would add anything, the other amendments could lead to dangerous breaches in the barrier of secrecy which must protect the work of the service to make it efficient.
Let us look first at the idea of a director-general's annual report. There is no advantage in making such a report public for those who have no responsibility for the work of the service. Although that would certainly satisfy the curiosity of some—perhaps many—people, it would not do anything other than present a high risk to the security of the nation from time to time. Those who are hostile to this country will be interested in the policies and priorities of those who protect us. Risk assessments and assessments by directors-general of where they think that the threats are coming from are meat and drink to the intelligence agencies of other countries, ditto any explanation of our resources and capacities. Those are exactly the sort of managerial issues upon which the director-general must concentrate in his responsibilies for the efficiency of the service. Nor is there any need to require the Secretary of State to review decisions that were made 10 years ago, probably by his predecessors, as another amendment suggests. It is not the case that every threat that was live 10 years ago is necessarily dead 10 years later.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Patten: I will give way in a moment.
There may be a latency in threats to the security of the country, as can be seen from the history of this century when we have tried to defend the country against such threats.

Dr. Alan Glyn: rose—

Mr. Patten: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn).

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I took that into account by making it possible for the new Home Secretary—the one 10 years later—to decide whether or not there was the opportunity to disclose that information? All that this group of amendments does, which I believe is what the House wants, is to appreciate that there will be continuing pressure for accountability of the security services. Unless the Home Secretary concedes a little more than he has so far, that problem will not go away for the Government and the Bill will not meet the Government's aims.

Mr. Patten: I understand the reasoned and reasonable way in which the hon. Gentleman has both drafted his amendment and spoken to it, but he does not take into account another important factor. We do not have the benefit of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in the Chamber at present, but there are constitutional issues involved. Sometimes, though not so often these days, there are changes of Government within a decade and issues about ministerial decision taking is the time of one Government being looked at by Ministers in the time of another. I do not believe that the amendment of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish deals with that point.

Dr. Glyn: Intelligence is a jigsaw and even after 10 years the jigsaw might be completed with seemingly innocuous information which could nevertheless be important in the jigsaw.

Mr. Patten: Characteristically, my hon. Friend has put his finger right on it. From time to time intelligence can be a jigsaw and there may be matters which for 10 or 15 years have lurked in the undergrowth, but which suddenly turn out to be matters of relevance to the security of this country.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said, under the Bill an independent commissioner—we must not lose sight of the fact that the commissioner is a senior judge—is charged with reviewing the exercise by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the powers under clause 3 and to report in the way which has been described. That is a better safeguard than a report on warrants made a decade ago under the powers of another Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he would like to see these matters debated more widely in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the time-honoured litany of junior Ministers at the Dispatch Box, matters concerning the arrangement of future business of the House are not for me. We shall, however, note what the hon. Gentleman said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has clearly put a great deal of thought into his amendment No. 12, but we believe that placing requirements upon the commissioner in preparing his annual report is both unreasonable and unsafe. For example, to set down in a public document risk assessments by the director-general or anyone else connected with the service would be most unhelpful to the security of the nation.

Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr, Patten: I will, but my hon. Friend had some time to deploy his arguments earlier and I was trying to reply to his points.

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend has suggested that it would be unsafe to supply this information to the Prime Minister or to the Home Secretary. He will recall that in this context I mentioned clause 4(7), which states:
If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Service, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter".
All that I am suggesting is that these reports be supplied to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, which is surely helpful to them.

Mr. Patten: Of course, the supply of that information is necessary to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, where and when necessary, to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend has only to look at what he has presumably drafted in amendment No. 12 to see that its import is to prepare matters of this kind for some future publication. I do not accept that that is desirable. Much of the material that the commissioner will be obliged to include in some report, prepared presumably for publication but then subject to security deletions, is not within his functions to acquire, nor would it be right for him to do so. Other material goes right to the heart of Security Service operations, and I do not believe that it could be published. I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay on that point.
The aim of this group of amendments is to try to allow Parliament to know more about the Security Service and how it works. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading and by me during the winding up speech on that occasion, it is essential to our philosophy that the proper concerns of the public and of Parliament—they are extremely important—should be met by placing functions and safeguards, and a complaints procedure, on a statutory basis while ensuring that the secrets which are at the heart of our security can and should continue to be kept.
On those grounds, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 2, line 9, at end add—
'(5) The Director-General shall make an annual report to Parliament'.—[Mr. Cryer.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 209.

Division No. 34]
[8.58 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crowther, Stan


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cryer, Bob


Aitken, Jonathan
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eadie, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Galbraith, Sam


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Graham, Thomas


Cartwright, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Howells, Geraint




Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Morley, Elliott


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Nellist, Dave


Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L


Johnston, Sir Russell
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Jo


Lambie, David
Robertson, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Loyden, Eddie
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Turner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Vaz, Keith


McLeish, Henry
Wall, Pat


Maclennan, Robert
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wilson, Brian


Martlew, Eric
 Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maxton, John
Worthington, Tony


Meale, Alan



Michael, Alun
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. David Winnick and


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Morgan, Rhodri




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arbuthnot, James
Evennett, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Franks, Cecil


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; CI't's)
Freeman, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sydney
Gow, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Churchill, Mr
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Colvin, Michael
Grist, Ian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Ground, Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Couchman, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cran, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Harris, David


Devlin, Tim
Hayes, Jerry


Dicks, Terry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Dorrell, Stephen
Hay ward, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Dover, Den
Heddle, John


Dunn, Bob
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Durant, Tony
Hill, James





Hind, Kenneth
Rattan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Howard, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irving, Charles
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jackson, Robert
Scott, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
(Streatham)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Latham, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maples, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trippier, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn. Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steve
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Yeo, Tim


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Price, Sir David
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Division No. 35]
[10.15 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Aitken, Jonathan
Blair, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Boateng, Paul


Alton, David
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Buchan, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Buckley, George J.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)





Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Macdonald, Calum A.


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McFall, John


Cartwright, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Maclennan, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cousins, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cox, Tom
Mallon, Seamus


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michael, Alun


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eadie, Alexander
Morley, Elliott


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Fyfe, Maria
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galbraith, Sam
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ruddock, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Gordon, Mildred
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hardy, Peter
Short, Clare


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hood, Jimmy
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wall, Pat


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Walley, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ingram, Adam
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Winnick, David


Kennedy, Charles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kirkwood, Archy
Worthington, Tony


Lambie, David
Wray, Jimmy


Leadbitter, Ted



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McAvoy, Thomas
Mr. Tony Banks.


McCartney, Ian





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F rest)


Arbuthnol, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Be van, David Gilroy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dover, Den


Browne, John (Winchester)
Durant, Tony


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Butcher, John
Favell, Tony


Butler, Chris
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butterfill, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forman, Nigel


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Cash, William
Franks, Cecil


Chapman, Sydney
Freeman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
French, Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Fry, Peter






Gale, Roger
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Garel-Jones, Tristan
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Gill, Christopher
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Knapman, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Knowles, Michael


Gow, Ian
Lang, Ian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Latham, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedalo)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gregory, Conal
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Lightbown, David


Grist, Ian
Lilley, Peter


Ground, Patrick
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Lord, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Hanley, Jeremy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Maclean, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Harris, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Mans, Keith


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Marland, Paul


Hayward, Robert
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Mellor, David


Hill, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Mills, Iain


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Holt, Richard
Mitchell, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Howard, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Moss, Malcolm


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nelson, Anthony


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Jack, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Jackson, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Norris, Steve


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip





Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raff an, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Warren, Kenneth


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Shersby, Michael
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

WARRANTS

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 2, line 10, at beginning insert—
'() Where the Director-General believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to national security, he may after having obtained the approval of the Solicitor General, make an application in accordance with the provisions of this section.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 58, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert
'an order of a Judge of the High Court upon application by the Service'.
No. 94, in page 2, line 12, at end insert
'but this section shall not exclude an application to court for a judicial review of the reasons for the issue of the warrant and the consequent actions'.
No. 59, in page 2, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
'(2) An application to a judge for a warrant under subsection (1) shall be made ex parte in writing and be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant deposing to the following matters, namely—

(a) the facts relied upon to justify the belief, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to obtain information which is likely to be of substantial value in assisting the Service to discharge its functions;
(b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears that they are unlikely to succeed, that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation using only other investigative procedures;
(c) the type of information, records, documents or things proposed to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (3) below proposed to be exercised for that purpose;
(d) the identity of the person, if known, who has possession of the information, record, document or thing proposed to be obtained;
(e) the persons or class of persons to whom the warrant is proposed to be directed;
(f) a general description of the place where the warrant is proposed to be executed, if a general description of that place can be given;
(g) the period, not exceeding sixty days or six months, as the case may be, for which the warrant is requested to be in force that is applicable by virtue of subsection (5); and
(h) any previous application made in relation to a person identified in the affidavit pursuant to paragraph (d), the date on which such application was made, the name of the judge to whom each such application was made and the decision of the judge thereon.
(3) Notwithstanding any other law, where the judge to whom an application under subsection (1) is made is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the judge may issue a warrant authorising the persons to whom it is directed to obtain any information, record, document or thing and, for that purpose,
(a) to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing;
(b) to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or
(c) to install, maintain or remove any thing.
(4) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (3)—

(a) the type of information, records, documents or things authorised to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) authorised to be exercised for that purpose;
(b) the identity of the person, if known, who has possession of the information, record, document or thing to be obtained;
(c) the person or classes of persons to whom the warrant is directed;
(d) a general description of the place where the warrant may be executed, if a general description of that place can be given;
(e) the period for which the warrant is in force; and
(f) such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable in the public interest.
(5) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection (3) for a period exceeding—
(a) sixty days where the warrant is issued to enable the Service to investigate a threat to national security within the meaning of paragraph (d) of the definition of that expression in subsection (2) of section 1; or
(b) six months in any other case.
(6) On application in writing to a judge for the renewal of a warrant issued under subsection (3) made by a person entitled to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Solicitor General, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection (5) if satisfied by evidence on oath that
(a) the warrant continues to be required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to national security; and
(b) any of the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) are applicable in the circumstances.
(7) The Director-General shall be under a duty—
(a) to apply in writing to a judge requesting the cancellation of a warrant at any time when he reasonably believes that the action authorised is no longer necessary;
(b) to destroy forthwith any information, record, document or thing obtained as a result of the exercise of the warrant and which does not relate to the individual named in the warrant;
(c) to destroy forthwith any information, record, document or thing which proves to be irrelevant to the investigation for the purposes of which the warrant is issued.
(8) An application under subsection (1) to a judge for a warrant or a renewal of a warrant shall be heard in private.
(9) The Solicitor General may make regulations—
(a) prescribing the forms of warrants that may be issued under subsection (3);
(b) governing the practice and procedure of, and security requirements applicable to, hearings of applications for such warrants and for renewals of such warrants; and
(c) notwithstanding the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 as amended, specifying the places where such hearings may be held and the places where, and the manner in which, records or documents concerning such hearings shall be kept.'.
No. 95, in page 2, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert 'by a Minister in his Department'.

Mr. Shepherd: Amendments Nos. 56, 58 and 59 relate to the judicial issuing of warrants. An integral part of the scheme to give the checks and balances that are needed in the Bill was a requirement that warrants be issued by a judge. The amendments set out the terms and conditions under which the warrants would be issued. I am mindful that hon. Members are becoming impatient, but it is an essential concept that it should not be an arbitrary power, albeit that it is laid down in statute—if that is not a contradiction in terms—that determines that a warrant be issued.
Under the arrangements that we were seeking to make in the Bill to give the checks and balances which we hoped


would make the Bill conform to the democratic requirements, it was necessary for the director-general of the Security Service to seek the permission of the Home Secretary or the responsible Minister who would authorise the application for a warrant. The director-general of the Security Service would then apply to a judge and these criteria would have to be satisfied. The omission from the Government scheme is that the issuing of a warrant will not be subject to any judicial authority. It will be solely an administrative decision taken by the Executive, and that is worrying.
I know that the Government are well aware that this is contrary to the principle recommended by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, that a person who is to be the subject of, for example, electronic surveillance should have his interests represented by the Official Solicitor or a similar body at a hearing prior to authorisation by a judicial authority. I am not certain whether that could be accommodated. I am also worried that the procedure is contrary to the procedures adopted by the United States and most European countries. Our amendments reflect what the Home Secretary referred to as the Canadian cloth. It is worrying lest a questionable practice is being included in the Bill, following the European Court judgment in Klass v. Federal Republic of Germany, which questioned
whether an administrative decision without judicial authority would meet the court's requirement of independence 'in a field where abuse is potentially so easy in individual cases and could have such harmful consequences for democratic society as a whole'.
10.30 pm
I will not delay the Committee by going through each part of the amendment. It is designed to ensure that the rule of law prevails—that the Executive is subject to a degree of independent scrutiny from the judiciary and that the actions of the judiciary in a narrowly defined way are subject to those tests.
That is an important principle of our system of government, but in the Bill it is done away with for a number of things. The worry is that now that we have no definition of "national security" we are in the position, as we have said when debating earlier amendments, that, whatever the Home Secretary says is national security, it now becomes a lawful basis on which to enter premises.
Thus, the criterion that we were seeking—a definition of "national security"—is not available for a judge to endorse when granting a warrant. Our purpose is to try, at each stage of the Bill, to ensure the continued democratic values and protections of society. That comes down to ministerial responsibility, with the services being responsible to Ministers.
A judicial review of these aspects is necessary, for without those protections none of us can be free people.Otherwise it means the arbitrary power of the Home Secretary determining what he perceives to be a threat to national security, perhaps on the advice of the security services, and that could be the object of the scrutiny of the state through the surveillance of or entry on to premises. There is no safeguard of this judicial intervention.
That was the reason for having, in addition, independent oversight, plus the Government's proposed commissioner or what we would have described under other amendments as the inspector-general. That would

have put all the necessary forms in place, with an inspector-general to review the warrants after they were issued to ensure that the purposes, duties and intent of the warrants were met by the Security Service in the execution of the warrants.
In addition, those warrants could be scrutinised by an independent review committee comprised of, we suggest, Privy Councillors who could be within or without the House. That was designed to meet the anxieties of many hon. Members on these Benches who fear that genuine Security Service matters could suffer were there to be any extension of what is called the circle of secrecy.
We do not see how this can be a reasonable Bill without there being some judicial oversight to ensure that the warrant that is issued conforms with the functions, needs and tasks of the Security Service.

Mr. Cryer: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who will agree that the amendments standing in my name, Nos. 94 and 95, are simpler than his. After the opening words of clause 3:
No entry on or interference with property shall be unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this section
my amendment No. 94 would add:
but this section shall not exclude an application to court for a judicial review of the reasons for the issue of the warrant and the consequent actions.".
It appears very final for the House to say to anyone, including a Minister, that he can interfere with property through burglary, which is normally a serious criminal offence, albeit on the understanding that members of the security services are trying to protect us from terrorism or in the interests of national security, although that is very loosely defined. It could be in the interests of protecting the Prime Minister's reputation or position. Such wide definitions are possible under the terms of the Bill.
This is a serious matter. People will be burgled unjustly and mistakenly. The security services contain people who will be less than effective. We have already heard about the way in which Michael Bettaney was selected at a time when he was drinking a bottle of whisky a day. The security services people operate in a twilight world. They cannot say around the table what they do. They cannot say, when the brown Windsor soup and other courses are out of the way, "I work for the security services and our work is very interesting." It is not that sort of job. They have to be secretive and, at some stage, they must deceive a number of people by lying about their occupation. That places stress and strain on them and can produce fumbled judgments and mistaken decisions. As a consequence, they can burgle people mistakenly and, in pursuit of such burglaries, possibly injure or harm people to cover up their operations.
It is therefore reasonable that we should not be prepared to say that, simply because a warrant has been issued, there can be no challenge and that nothing done in pursuance of the issue of that warrant is unlawful. That is quite outrageous. My first amendment does not exclude the possibility of a judicial review of
the reasons for the issue of the warrant and the consequent actions".
The Minister may say that we must give absolute sanctions to the people who carry out the duties laid down in the warrant. Under the Bill, the commissioner will be a senior member of the judiciary. The Minister may say that the


Government place great store by members of the judiciary and, if the Government place great store by them, why should not the ordinary citizen do so if he feels aggrieved and has direct access to the courts, irrespective of the complaints procedure established in the Bill?
My second amendment states that a warrant shall not be issued except under the hand of the Secretary of State. There is a confused jumble in which a warrant can be issued when the Secretary of State says that it is all right to do so. It is endorsed by him and can be issued under the hand of an official of his Department.
Too much work is given to Secretaries of State. We appoint junior Ministers and there is in every Department, particularly the Home Department, a junior Minister on duty when the Secretary of State is out of the country. We should not hand such a duty to an official, no matter how senior. The proposal in the Bill presents difficulties and possibilities for misinterpretations. My amendment simply states that a warrant shall be issued under the hand of the Secretary of State or a Minister in his Department. It will be clear that, when the Secretary of State has gone off to some conference of Common Market Home Office Ministers and their equivalents, the junior Minister who is in charge will be given the task of authorising warrants. I know that it is unusual for junior Ministers to be given important jobs, but junior Ministers are appointed and are part of the Government. When they make mistakes they are accountable, and sometimes the Government are embarrassed by their errors and discreetly get rid of them, so a junior Minister would be responsible for making sensible decisions. After all, junior Ministers sit in the House, and it would be wrong in principle if the Government, in producing the legislation, were prepared to hand over a very important task to a senior official "of or above Grade 3"—a description which smacks of "Brave New World".
My amendment No. 95 simply places an obligation on the elected Government Ministers of the day to carry out the duty which they consider to be so important. I hope that my modest attempts to improve the Bill—which I do not like very much—will lead the Minister to recognise the attempts by the Committee to improve the degree of accountability and accept the amendments. That would save the time of the Committee.

Mr. Aitken: I support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I support the principle that he enunciated of the desirability of having the judiciary rather than the Home Secretary in charge of the warrants. I shall not develop the same theme, because, given my views on the possible lack of infallibility of the Secretary of State, it is obvious that I should support it.
I wish to develop the argument that was touched on by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) relating to the issue of warrants by the Secretary of State. We already know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have the strictest possible instructions not to make any concessions towards accepting any amendment so that the dreaded thought of a Report stage must be avoided at all costs. No matter how badly the Bill is drafted or how awful a dent is being made in our civil liberties, no amendments are to be conceded. However, I think that I have found a

classic example of how MI5, the drafters of the Bill, have shot themselves in the foot disastrously and will have to amend the Bill.
Clause 3(3) deals with the issuing of a warrant. It states:
A warrant shall not be issued under this section except—
(a) under the hand of the Secretary of State: or
(b) in an urgent case where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue".
Presumably, when the Secretary of State is in the north of Scotland, he can authorise a warrant by telephone and an official in his Deprtment can sign it.
The problem is that that scenario concentrates all warrant authorisation by signature or on the telephone exclusively and entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is unworkable as there will be many occasions when the security services need a warrant quite quickly and the Secretary of State is unobtainable. For example, I understand that the Secretary of State is to visit the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is a semi-official visit, but knowing something of the hospitality there, I have no doubt that his schedule will include some up-country trips, perhaps a spot of falconry in the desert or some camping miles away from telephones or possible communication with the office in London. There could be many such occasions in the Secretary of State's life. He could be on holiday, swimming in the sea out of range of a telephone, or he could be ill or incapacitated.

Mr. Maclennan: I wish that I could believe that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has discovered such a flaw, but it is a canon of statutory interpretation that use of the phrase "Secretary of State" does not confine itself to any particular Secretary of State. If, as he suggests, the Secretary of State for the Home Department is unavailable, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or another, to fulfil the task.

Mr. Aitken: I know that that has been past practice. It is well known that, when seeking warrants, the security services have often called upon what might be called the weakest link in the chain—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Secretary of State with responsibility for drains, as being the last man in Whitehall on a Friday afternoon, because he does not have a clue about what goes on and can be counted on briskly to sign the authorisation.

Mr. Allason: I cannot believe that other Secretaries of State are authorised to sign warrants. In the past, and under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, it has been the practice to identify the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It will be improper if other Secretaries of State, who are not aware of the background, consider the detailed submissions that must be made to obtain a warrant.

Mr. Aitken: No doubt the Minister will elucidate that point, but the Bill appears to give no scope for any person other than the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to whom the Bill refers throughout as the Home Secretary, and who is responsible for oversight and monitoring supervision, to sign warrants.
I am baffled by the notion that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will not, in any circumstances, take a day off. If that is so—and clause 3(3) reads that way—it reveals a defect in the arrangements. Clearly, although


the Home Secretary has summoned up for himself amazing powers of oversight and monitoring, he cannot be everlastingly omnipresent and eternally vigilant so as to authorise warrants.
I suggest that an amendment must be made to allow Secretaries of State—in the plural—to authorise warrants. It would be preferable if the judiciary, who are plural, did so. I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) concerning the canon of interpretation is not valid. As I read the Bill, it contains a defect, and the provision for issuing warrants will have to be amended.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to speak briefly in support of amendments Nos. 56, 58 and 59, which were eloquently and persuasively spoken to by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). However, I do so with reservations, because amendment No. 58 refers to
an order of a Judge of the High Court",
which I interpret to mean an English High Court judge.
We have within the United Kingdom one other separate legal jurisdiction. In circumstances in which an application relating to Scotland is made by the Solicitor-General—leaving aside the question of whether or not it should be the Solicitor-General for Scotland—it is only right and proper that it should be made to a judge within the Scottish jurisdiction; whether of the Court of Session or of the High Court of Justiciary is something we need not debate this evening. That can easily be corrected at a later stage in the Bill's progress.
We are concerned with a matter of principle. Where the innovation of one's personal rights, whether in respect of liberty of property, is to be justified by the issuing of warrants, it is only right and proper that the warrant by which such enervation takes place should be issued by a source that can have no interest in the consequential outcome. Judges, for all their faults, have long been more effective guardians of the freedom of United Kingdom citizens. It was not a Secretary of State who said:
Be you ever so high the law is above you.
Had we had to rely on Secretaries of State to protect our personal liberties, I suspect that those personal liberties would have been in a far less effective and vibrant condition than they are today.

Mr. Buchan: I believe that the interpretation of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was right: normally "the Secretary of State" means "any Secretary of State", which is even more appalling. The element of secrecy surrounding the Bill, and the fact that there is no scrutiny Committee with any public responsibility or accountability, but that all is left in the hands of the Home Secretary—who may be missing—and the Prime Minister, mean that if the one person who is being reported to in any detail on the workings of the Security Service is missing, an entirely unknown Secretary of State, for example, the Minister of Agriculture, may sign the warrant.

Mr. Aitken: I am fascinated by all the constitutional experts who are popping up on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify the matter a little further. If the words "the Secretary of State" can mean "any Secretary of State", does that apply throughout the

Bill? Can the director-general be appointed by any Secretary of State, or the monitoring be done by any Secretary of State? Are all Secretaries of State transferable?

Mr. Buchan: I think that legally the short answer is yes. The practical, empirical answer is of course no, but I think that that is the case unless it is written into the appropriate clause that the Secretary of State referred to is the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is very common: agriculture Bills tend to refer to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland. If that definition is not given, what I have described could happen.
Whether it happens or not, however, the position remains serious. We said yesterday that the whole apparatus of grim secrecy will be left in the hands of only one accountable person in Parliament—the Home Secretary, reporting to the Prime Minister. The director-general, and his position in relation to the Home Secretary, makes the thing even more private, even more secret and even more dangerous.
It would be better if the wording were clarified, but of course the Government do not want to clarify it now. Many defects have been pointed out in the past two days, but the Government have dodged them all. Earlier this evening we saw an astonishing phenomenon whereby Conservative Members accepted the main burden of the argument put forward in the form of a statement by the Home Secretary, but there was no offer to bring it into legislation. They are afraid of the tiniest amendment because they do not want to come back to the Bill on Report, when more thought could be given to it.

Mr. Cryer: What my hon. Friend has said suggests that any Secretary of State can ring up an official and say, "I expressly authorise a warrant." The official jots it down and then simply says, "The Minister of Agriculture happened to ring this morning and issued a warrant, which I endorse under my hand", and that fulfils the purpose of subsection (3)(b).

Mr. Buchan: In some circumstances I think that that could be the legislative and technical position, but we shall find out shortly from the Dispatch Box. In practical terms it would not be the case, because there would already be a working arrangement between the Secretary of State, that curious group of people MI5, and the various ancillaries.
Of course, it would be better if the matter were in the hands of a judge—if the judiciary in one form or another had given its imprimatur. But do not let us be too confident about that either. It was a head under a wig that made that infamous declaration in the Ponting case that the interests of the state were synonymous with those of the Government of the day. Incidentally, it is a terrible indictment of parliamentary democracy that we must lean on judges rather than on this place to try to save our democracy and freedom, and I understand why hon. Members say that accountability should be secured by a Committee of the House. It was, for example, a judge—the Lord Advocate-who signed the warrant to allow the invasion of the Scottish BBC, over the Zircon case—another entirely unnecessary and dangerous invasion of our freedoms.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall that the Lord Advocate was a Minister, but it was a Scottish judge who regarded the first warrant as incompetent and reduced it.

Mr. Buchan: I withdraw what I said. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. The judge rejected it as being a portmanteau warrant and therefore improper.
I believe that the amendments put forward by two Conservative Members and supported by members of the SDP—or whatever strange name they call themselves nowadays—should be supported. It takes a lot for me to say that. The Government knew they were wrong throughout the debates yesterday and today. It was clear they knew they were wrong. They did not seem prepared to make the slightest amendment. Have some courage. Say yes.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall be brief as I do not wish to delay the Committee too much longer. I raised this issue on Second Reading, but the Minister did not respond. I want to give him a chance to do so because it raises serious implications. As we are discussing warrants, there is an opportunity legitimately to raise this matter. Under this legislation there will be warrants authorising breaking and entering and burglary, allegedly in the interests of the state. Under the Bill, burglary would become legal. In those circumstances, what I described on Second Reading as the "Hilda Murrell" implications arise. We should have some answers from the Minister about those implications.
What if the home-owner comes home and finds the warranted burglar, for want of a better word—it might not even be an MI5 man in these days of privatisation, as the job might have been contracted out to somebody—in his or her home and resists? That is not a hypothetical question. When people find burglars in their home they tend to resist. Many people put up a fight in defence of their property. What orders will the warranted burglar or MIS man have in those circumstances? Can the Minister tell us? What will the MIS man say in those circumstances? It is an important point and it has further implications. Ordinary burglars who are not MI5 men might say, if caught in the act, "I am doing it for MI5." What is the situation?
What if the warranted burglar assaults the homeowner? Will he be subject to prosecution? Will the police have a role, or will they be told that they have to cover up for MI5 because it is secret and in the national interest? If the home-owner is injured, will he be eligible to claim compensation? In general, if home-owners are hurt they can claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. How will a home-owner go about seeking compensation in these circumstances? What if the home-owner assaults the warranted intruder? Will the home-owner then be prosecuted? Will he be punished or will he be left not knowing what is going on, perhaps waiting in fear for some sort of revenge from the burglar because he got the best of the issue?
What will happen in such cases? The ensuing struggle might result in murder. What happens if the warranted burglar—the MI5 man—murders the home-owner? Will the matter ever come to court? Will it ever come out into the open? What will happen in those circumstances?

Conversely, what happens if the home-owner murders the MI5 man? Will he be quietly bumped off or will he be taken to court?
The Government are making a new law with all those implications. They are not hypothetical questions. What is the position in law? The Government should tell us.

11 pm

Mr. John Patten: What an interesting debate this has been. It started quietly when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) opened the batting for himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I appreciate their concern for democracy and for the individual, but they can be met in a number of different ways and in the end one has to judge which is the best.
First, let me deal with judicial intervention in the warrant-making process, which is where my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills began. Then I shall deal with the interesting and important points raised by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South on the meaning of the words "Secretary of State" in the authorisation of warrants. Last but not least, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), which he also made on Second reading at column 1174 of Hansard, to which I was unable to respond due to pressure of time.
The proposals on the role of the judiciary in the warrant-making process are not practicable in the context of Britain. It is always as well to begin with one's own country rather than some theoretical situation. The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills propose a two-stage procedure involving approval by the Solicitor-General and a submission in writing to a High Court judge. Let us remember that in Britain the terrorist threat may be rather different from that in many other countries, as hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise. Matters may be extremely urgent. Terrorists do not wait for legal procedures to be completed before they act. We all recognise that.
Therefore, it is essential to be able to deal with applications for warrants as quickly as possible. If we adopted some scheme for judicial intervention such as that put forward by my hon. Friends, argument would be on the basis of written papers. The judge might have no previous understanding of or experience in Security Service issues. He will have to make a first judgment on issues that have never been before him. [HON. MEMBERS: "So will the Secretary of State."] But Secretaries of State will at least—it is an important at least—have had considerable briefing on the Security Service and how ii: works. The judge will have had no previous experience in the consideration of Security Service work, or knowledge of the policy or background to the work. It is then up to the learned judge, according to my hon. Friends' amendment, to authorise individuals to obtain information and to do anything listed in subsection (3) of amendment No. 59. Moreover, the judge becomes involved in operational issues. I do not know whether that is my hon. Friend's design. He may set such terms and conditions as he considers advisable in the public interest.
What is the director-general to do if he finds that the warrant has allowed an operation to take place in theory but that it has been frustrated in practice because of the way in which judicial intervention has worked, because of pre-conditions laid down by the learned judge, or because of the value judgments made by the judge that some members of the service might have been placed at considerable personal risk? Those are important considerations.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am charmed by my hon. Friend's hypotheses, but surely that is all that they can be. He has not produced any evidence to suggest that his hypotheses have any bearing in fact. For some time now, some of us have contended that our proposals are based on the statutory provisions of a country that shares our concepts of the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and ministerial responsibility and a judicial system not unlike our own. The Canadians have not had the hypothetical difficulties that my hon. Friend mentioned. The Canadians have to deal with terrorism too. They have had to deal with separatists—although the terrorist problem may not have been of the same dimension as ours—and they are part of the international community. An Air India aircraft originating from Canada was lost through terrorist activity.
We are trying to bring to the Minister's attention the fact that there is substantial evidence to show that the Canadian system works. He may go off on a detour about hypotheses and say that people in this country are too foolish and that our situation is so special that such matters cannot be understood. The Home Secretary said that cloth that is woven anywhere other than in Whitehall is not relevant.

Mr. Patten: I make no apology for speaking hypothetically, any more than my hon. Friend has. We are both speaking hypothetically about the possible adoption by this Government, or some other, of the proposals in amendment No. 56.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose—

Mr. Patten: May I address myself first to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills before I give way? We have to deal with what may happen, so we are both speaking hypothetically. I had not, especially, wanted to discuss the Canadian system because I intend my remarks to be informed by the British experience. However, unfortunately from our point of view, it seems that in Canada—and I have looked into this too—it can take up to two days to achieve a judicial warrant. On some occasions, two days would not matter, but on others, when there was a serious terrorist threat, two days would matter.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I apologise if, through an excess of zeal, I appeared to be interrupting the Minister when he was answering another hon. Member.
Will the Minister leave aside the hypotheses for a moment and address himself to the principle, about which hon. Members feel most strongly? Does he accept that, as the security services are an arm of the Executive, it is only right and proper, if they are to be authorised to commit what would otherwise be illegal acts, that the authorisation should come from the judiciary and not from the Executive?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept that. In the context of the threats that we face in this country and the long-established roles of the judiciary and the Executive, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable experience in the law-albeit north of the border—has referred—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is nothing wrong with that."] I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. I did not realise that I had touched a raw nerve. The judiciary should not become involved in the day-to-day operational decisions of the Security Service. When one considers the threats that this country faces, one realises that to take decisions about warrants requires an appreciation of the overall objectives of the Security Service and the considerations relating to the well-being and security of this country.
The judiciary could not reasonably be expected to assume such major operational responsibilities. It has been the theme of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself that such responsibilities are, properly, for Ministers. The system that is proposed in the Bill, with the additional protections given by the tribunal and the commissioner, is, I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), an effective way to protect the interests of the nation as a whole.
I shall now deal with the interesting point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South and referred to by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, about the system for signing warrants.
Our present system is a very good one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is assiduous in his duties. He is not normally unobtainable, and I can tell the House—as a matter of the free dissemination of information—that neither falconry nor camping will be part of my hon. Friend's programme during his forthcoming visit to Saudi Arabia.
All these points stem from the constitutional doctrine that any Secretary of State can carry out the functions conferred upon a Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland put his finger on it; he was quite right. It is nevertheless fanciful to suggest that the appointment of the director-general or the oversight of the service will be carried out by anyone other than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South raised some important points, but I can confirm that the judgment of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was right. Let me explain what would happen in the process. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is fully informed while he is away from the office of the reasons why a warrant should be granted, he can give a civil servant of grade 3 or above the authority to sign the warrant. He can do that by his own direct personal authority. But that signature remains valid only for two days and the warrant can be renewed only over the hand of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Incidentally, I share the view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South, who said that he deplored the new description "grade 3". I rather liked the old phrase "under-secretary". Perhaps they will all be given numbers shortly.
I have described what will happen when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is available. It is quite clear that another Secretary of State could authorise a warrant under the Bill—the point raised by the hon. Member for


Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—but it is nonsense to suggest that a Secretary of State will be authorised to sign warrants without any background knowledge. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is closely involved in these matters, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is also involved. I remind the House that the language used in the Bill is exactly the same as that used in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. There is no change.

Mr. Maclennan: May we clarify the procedure? Suppose that the Home Secretary is in Saudi Arabia—not indulging in falconry but nevertheless unavailable to receive the intelligence from the Security Service that a particular matter requires the issue of a warrant. The Security Service will then have to convey that information to another Secretary of State; perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment will be the only one available. As I understand the clause, an official of above grade 3 at the Department of the Environment would have to issue the warrant in the absence of the Home Secretary. I do not regard that rather bizarre set of circumstances as entirely fanciful. It is perfectly clear that from time to time the Ministers who are in touch with these matters and aware of the background are simply not available.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is not usually known in the House for his flights of fancy, although he is known for many other things. Before his lengthy intervention, which turned into a speech, I said that that it was the other Secretaries of State concerned with security issues—for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—who would properly have an interest in these matters from time to time.
I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Leyton. Although I think that I can give him a clear assurance, if he does not mind I shall not refer to the case of Hilda Murrell because I am not aware of it, and in any event I should not wish to comment on a past case. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a cast-iron assurance that only activities that are legal and properly authorised will be carried out by the service. All that a warrant can authorise is action in respect of a named property, and both the action and the name of the property must be on the warrant. In no circumstances can a warrant authorise any attack on or interference with a person—that is no part of the service's task. So if, in the purely hypothetical case that was put to me by the hon. Member for Leyton, the owner resisted, he or she would be in exactly the same position as anyone else if he or she reasonably believed that the person entering was an intruder acting unlawfully.
With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton, other hon. Gentlemen and some of my hon. Friends will not seek to press their points in the Lobbies.

Mr. Cryer: An amendment that was designed simply to ensure greater ministerial accountability has developed a little. From subsection 3(3) it now appears that any Secretary of State can authorise a warrant. The hon. Gentlemen who pointed that out were quite right because the particular Secretary of State is not defined. Moreover, any Secretary of State can not only authorise a warrant; he can authorise a warrant over the telephone to an official

above grade 3. The official then takes down a message, saying that the Secretary of State, or rather in this case the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, authorises a warrant for entering an intervention store. Under paragraph 3(3)(b) the note by the official accompanies the issue of the warrant.
It may turn out that the Secretary of State did not make that authorisation, but that the official misheard what he said over the telephone. That sort of arrangement is permissible and authorised under the Bill. Therefore, under the Bill the Secretary of State does not have to write anything for a warrant to be issued—an official can simply take down a note.
The Minister said that issuing a warrant involves a Secretary of State who is concerned with security issues—

Mr. John Patten: It could.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, it could, but the Minister actually said "concerned with security issues". That would be in the ordinary run of the mill, but that is not what the Bill states. It states "the Secretary of State". Curiously, paragraph 3(3)(b) does not state "where a Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue", it states
where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised its issue".
I suspect that those who drafted the Bill were not too sure about the position and drafted it in a general and sloppy way so that they could invoke anybody, if they so chose, without any criticism being directed at them.
I have used the example of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If any hon. Member tables a question about the intervention stores in this country, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not reveal where they are because it is a secret. Therefore, it could be legitimately argued that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned with security issues because his Department has to hide all the locations of the cereal intervention stores. If somebody finds out that inside one of the intervention stores there are supposed to be cereals, but that instead it contains rotten apples, and. if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food needs to find out that information—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is very amusing, but he is straying from the amendment.

Mr. Cryer: My amendment No. 95 in fact requires a junior Minister to issue a warrant, and would exclude an official having anything to do with it.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must keep to the point of the issue of the warrant.

Mr. Cryer: I am absolutely with it. The point I am making is that the reasons that could be advanced for the issue of a warrant from a Department, which seem on the face of it highly unlikely, are actually a possibility in reality, because of the curious way in which we keep those intervention boards secret. Therefore, the Minister might argue that it is necessary to obtain a warrant and evidence that the secret of an intervention store is coming out.

Mr. Buchan: Can I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 1(3), because we have been mystified up to now—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Committee has disposed of clause 1

Mr. Buchan: It is completely relevant to this.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It may be relevant, but the Committee has dealt with clause 1, with respect, and I must remind the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Buchan: Can I—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I want to be reasonable about this, but the Committee has dealt with clause 1—that has gone.

Mr. Buchan: It is precisely because we have dealt with it that it becomes relevant to this section. Clause 1(3) refers to problems posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands, which is precisely the point that my hon. Friend is making about intervention stocks in this country, because they could have come from Belgium, Holland or France and they could be on the fiddle.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment deals strictly with the warrant and not with any intervention stores. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had come back to the point of the amendment, and perhaps he would now pursue that.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is saying that the issue of a warrant could be justified under clause 1(3), and it is the issue of the warrant about which we are concerned. I entirely accept, Miss Boothroyd, your injunction to keep to the point of the warrant, but the issue of the warrant is so vague. If it was an issue for a warrant to pop on a box of chocolates to say that it was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or whatever, we would not be too concerned, but we are talking about a warrant that authorises burglary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said, it is a warrant that authorises burglary with the possible consequence of people being injured. We believe that Hilda Murrell was killed by the security services. She was frightened, they were probably frightened, too, and something went terribly awry and she finished up dead.
We are talking about something that is extremely important, yet here we have a set of circumstances laid down in this Bill. At the end of the day, whatever the Minister says, it will not be a question of what is contained in Hansard. The words of the Bill will define the procedure to be undertaken. We are saying that this procedure is sloppy and that it has no adequate definition. If the Minister says that it has been done in the interception of communications legislation, I was not in the House at that time—no doubt missed greatly for the scrutiny that I can apply. This is new legislation on something which this House has never done before—the right physically to enter other people's property and to carry out what in every other case would be a serious criminal offence, with a possible penalty of several years' imprisonment.
I believe that the Minister should reconsider this, because it is a serious set of circumstances when any Secretary of State can authorise a warrant. It is no good the Minister saying that, of course, in practice it would not be any other Minister;, the fact is that under this legislation it apparently can be any other Secretary of State. The Minister is, in effect, saying that we are giving powers to every Secretary of State of every Department to issue warrants. That Minister will not be there all the time. We could have more nefarious, unscrupulous or ignorant

Ministers— [HON. MEMBERS: "Or Labour Ministers."] Labour will get rid of this licence for Ministers to authorise burglary and bugging. It is outrageous.
The Bill does not depend on assurances from the Minister that its remit will be confined. Once the Bill is passed the power is handed over to be applied by any Minister who happens to be appointed at the time. Although the Minister of State may give us genuine, fond assurances that that power will be concerned for paltry accountability, and all the other platitudes that Ministers tumble out from time to time, we are worried about the law that is laid down in the Bill.
As we understand it, any Secretary of State can authorise a warrant for burglary under the Bill. Consequently, a Secretary of State does not have to write anything to issue a warrant. He simply must say to someone, either directly, over the telephone or by other means, "Yes, I authorise you to issue a warrant." It could be that the Secretary of State's intention is distorted by a bleep in the electronic communications. The official may write down that the warrant is issued, whereas the Secretary of State said "The warrant is not issued." The official, in good faith, writes down that that warrant is authorised and it is then issued. It is absolutely incredible that such legislation is being pursued in the House.
Do the Government have the same standards when issuing regulations for social security benefits? No, they do not. When the Government are dealing with social security benefit legislation they lay down page after page of careful drafting. There are regulations on every detail and schedules to ensure that the poor and wretched do not get a penny more than they are authorised to receive.
If the Minister is doing something serious that authorises potentially criminal activity, he should, at least, be as careful in the primary legislation, as the Government are in other legislation on social security and other activities. That is not the case with the Bill. The Government are guilty of shoddiness because, once the Bill is passed, it will not come back to Parliament. It is true that there will be a parliamentary report from the commissioner, but there are no guarantees that it will be debated.
Behind closed doors there will be lots of telephoning and mistaken messages will be recorded. All that will be covered up. Officials may be told that MAFF authorised a warrant, but that it did not mean to and that it wants that warrant to be returned. The reply to the Ministry may well be, "Sorry, we have done the burglary." The outcome will be "Hard lines. It is just one of those things."
Nothing will be brought back to Parliament. That is not good enough and the Minister should be decent enough to issue a statement tonight to the effect that the Government will have another look at this matter and clarify the Bill to ensure that there is no mistake.
Given that important and potentially dangerous powers are to be authorised, we should, at least, have some sort of clarity in the legislation. If the Minister is unable to obtain such clarification from the Home Department, he should go to the Department of Social Security, because it has had lots of practice at issuing clear legislation to stop the poorest in the land getting an extra penny. The Minister should bring such scrutiny to bear on the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: As the debate has progressed, the case for the judicial issue of the warrants has become stronger.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked the Minister whether he accepted the principle of judicial warrants. The Minister said that he did not because he believed that the person who issued the warrant should have some understanding of the background to the Security Service and the matters in hand. It has become clear from the debate that the Bill does not provide for that. It is clear that any Secretary of State may issue a warrant, not just the Secretary of State with responsibility for the Security Service. Worse, in an emergency the Secretary of State in question may not even be consulted. If the service judges that there is an emergency which requires the issue of a warrant, the Bill entitles it to shop around for a Secretary of State who is favourable to issuing one. It can then be issued by an under-secretary. That is not fanciful—it is farcical. It is an unacceptable intrusion on fundamental rights and freedoms, and the Bill entitles the Security Service to make that intrusion.
11.30 pm
The emergency provisions in clause 3(3), which amendment No. 59 seeks to tackle more satisfactorily, are not acceptable. The implication that a court cannot move with the rapidity of a Minister is not sustainable either. The courts are accustomed to keeping duty judges sitting for just such eventualities, and it is perfectly possible to ensure that duty judges—High Court judges, or judges of equivalent status in Scotland—are on hand at all times. It would be easier to do that than to ensure that a Minister of the appropriate level was always on hand. In the nature of things, Secretaries of State are called to perform many duties, and it is highly improbable that there will always be a Minister familiar with the workings of the Security Service at this level when one is needed.
I hope that the Minister will eschew his position to the proposals on the grounds of practicality. Not only is it practical to operate a system of judicial warrants in this country, but such a system has been successfully operated in Canada and no one has ever suggested that it put the Canadian security service at risk or rendered its operations less effective.

Ms. Abbott: Clause 3 is subtitled "Warrants". It should be titled, in the immortal words of Peter Wright, "Bugging and Burgling." It is about the conditions under which the Security Service can break the law. It is because it is about the power and capacity of the Security Service to break the law and intervene in the lives of ordinary people that I support the amendments.
I listened with great attention to the Minister's explanation of why the amendments should not be accepted. It is always a pleasure to hear him lecture us on the facts of political life with his usual confidence, verve, elan and panache, but I suggest in all timidity that he did not quite meet the case. The Minister made three points with which my hon. Friends and I might differ. He accused the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) of making a hypothetical case, but the case was based on Canadian experience and was thus grounded in fact. It was the Minister's case that was hypothetical. He claimed that the problem with the Canadian system was that it might take up to two days. We do not accept that. We are quite sure that in urgent cases the judiciary could move more quickly than that. There are plenty of examples of judges being whipped from their beds to issue warrants.
The Minister claimed that the considered, careful and precise drafting of the amendment was not necessary because there would be a tribunal and a commissioner. The Minister has missed the point. The tribunal and the commissioner can come into play only after the bugging and burglary have taken place. The amendment seeks to make sure that before any elaborate illegality takes place the matter has gone through the due judicial process. Given the power and the capacity of the security services to break the law, intervention by the judiciary is not only necessary but appropriate. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Minister can be prevailed upon to change his opinion of the reasonable amendments that have been tabled.

Mr. Aitken: I intervene to press my hon. Friend the Minister for a more convincing explanation of the procedure on the warrants as it affects the Secretary of State. I maintained in an earlier intervention that clause 3(3) is clearly directed at the Secretary of State, meaning the Home Secretary only. After a great deal of scribbling and passing of notes backwards and forwards between the Minister and his advisers and a little help from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who is so learned in the law, it emerged that "Secretary of State" can mean any Secretary of State. So be it: we must respect the views of constitutional and legal experts.
If that is the case, why on earth has the drafter of the Bill put in paragraph (b)? There is now an elaborate procedure for urgent cases by which grade 3 civil servants can have telephone instructions and can get two-day endorsements. Why is paragraph (b) necessary if any old Secretary of State can sign the warrant? My hon. Friend's position does not make too much sense if the Bill was drafted as correctly and as perfectly as he would have us believe. If "Secretary of State" means any Secretary of State, the procedure is simple and a warrant can be signed in many places in Whitehall. If that is the case we do not need the complex machinery of endorsements lasting two days made by grade 3 officials. Either that is the case or, as I suspected all along, the clause, like many others in the Bill, has been badly drafted. I press my hon. Friend for a better explanation than the one that he has given.

Mr. John Patten: The explanation that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will be in Hansard for him to read. Tomorrow, when he gets the chance to reflect upon it, he will recognise that the system provides for complete overall supervision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Bill provides that in an emergency another Secretary of State, normally as I explained the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have a hand in this. In addition, an under-secretary of state or deputy under-secretary of state who might take instructions by telephone about these issues on the personal authorisation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be a Home Department official.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend cannot be allowed to get away with this so easily. Perhaps I could use a cricketing analogy. We have heard about a wicket keeper, a deputy wicket keeper and a long stop. We have never heard of a Bill in which 11 long stops are easily obtainable. Not only


can the warrants be signed by all Secretaries of State, but by many civil servants. Will my hon. Friend accept that this should be tidied up in another place?

Mr. Allason: The Minister has made the extraordinary claim that any Secretary of State can sign one of these warrants. In the past these warrants have been signed, for example, in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland and in Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The procedure is detailed in the interception of communications legislation, on which this provision is clearly based. But the idea that in an emergency another Secretary of State could examine the detailed submissions that must be made before a warrant is granted is absolutely bizarre and I hope my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to correct himself.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister said that there could not be judicial intervention in the signing of warrants because the judiciary would not have the expertise and briefing available to the Home Secretary. We are now being told that any Secretary of State—be he responsible for taxi cabs, agriculture and fisheries or whatever—will do. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that that contradicts his earlier statement that only the Home Secretary or a Minister in the Home Office with expertise could perform this task.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am surprised that the debate on this issue has gone on for so long without the Minister really answering the point that has been adduced. I understand this to be simply a drafting matter. Whereas, in the past, in legislation specific Ministers were named, a point came when the Prime Minister wished to reallocate responsibilities and problems arose. So it has become a convention in recent legislation to refer to the Secretary of State and for the duties of a particular Secretary of State to be authorised from time to time by the Prime Minister. It seems that this legislation is simply following that convention. The Minister might have told us that at a much earlier stage.

Mr. Tony Banks: Having been absent from the Committee for only a short while this evening, I return to find the Mad Hatter's tea party in progress. Will the Minister explain whether there are any parallels in legislation that would explain the situation that is giving rise to so much concern in the Committee?

Mr. Maclennan: The mystery of the Minister's reluctance to answer the questions that have been put to him can be explained by recognising that he is endeavouring to retain the absolutely unfettered freedom of the Security Service to obtain warrants and to be in no way trammelled by the non-availability of a Minister.
We recognise that urgency is an important factor, but the Minister cannot at the same time argue for urgency and for experts being available. Ministers with knowledge and background will not always be available. The Security Service will have to seek warrants from time to time without being able to adduce arguments with the support of a Minister with such expertise. The Minister has, by his reluctance to address this point, shot down his earlier argument that this had to be done by people with expertise and could not be done by a judge.

Mr. Aitken: I have a final suggestion, it having now been revealed that a complex safeguarding of civil rights procedure is not involved in the issuing of warrants. Indeed, warrants can be instantly available. In this building there is an efficient organisation which, among other things, issues rail warrants. It is called the Fees Office. Would it not be simpler to put the Fees Office in charge of issuing these warrants on behalf of the Security Service, thereby solving the problem?

Question put,That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 50, Noes 180.

Division No. 36]
[11.44 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livsey, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
McAvoy, Thomas


Alton, David
Macdonald, Calum A.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McFall, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McTaggart, Bob


Beith, A. J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; Ft'dish)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Boateng, Paul
Martlew, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Buchan, Norman
Morley, Elliott


Buckley, George J.
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Fyfe, Maria
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Gordon, Mildred
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hardy, Peter
Winnick, David


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Robert Maclennan and


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Menzies Campbell.




NOES


Allason, Rupert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arbuthnot, James
Fookes, Dame Janet


Beggs, Roy
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fry, Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gow, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chope, Christopher
Gregory, Conal


Churchill, Mr
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Grist, Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Couchman, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Cran, James
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Harris, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hayes, Jerry


Devlin, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Dicks, Terry
Hayward, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heddle, John


Dover, Den
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Durant, Tony
Hill, James


Evennett, David
Hind, Kenneth


Favell, Tony
Holt, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Howard, Michael






Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jack, Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jackson, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Summerson, Hugo


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trippier, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steve
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Price, Sir David
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No.84, in page 3, line 4, at end add—
'(8) Where any individual reports to the police any event which appear to be criminal, and where the police are satisfied prima facie evidence of a crime exists, they shall inform the individual if no crime has been committed because the events were permitted under a warrant issued under this act by the Secretary of State; and shall inform the individual of his rights to have the matter investigated by a tribunal as specified in Schedule 1 to this Act.'
When speaking to the last group of amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to a situation that I want the Minister to address—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall be grateful if right hon. and hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quietly, so that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) can be heard.

Mr. Bennett: In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton referred to a problem that amendment No. 84 is designed to overcome, where something goes wrong with the activities of the Security Service. Clearly, the main purpose of warrants will be to undertake burglary or bugging, in such a way that the individual whose property is burgled or whose telephones are tapped will not know of it.
If such activities are successfully undertaken, the individual is unlikely to know of them and to be in a position to complain. However, if something goes wrong, the individual will be left in considerable doubt as to what has happened. The purpose of amendment No. 84 is to ensure that the individual is given a clear statement that what he believed to be a criminal offence was not criminal but something authorised by the Home Secretary—and that as a result, he has a right, under schedule 1 to the Act, to appeal to the tribunal for redress.—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is very difficult for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to be heard. If right hon. and hon. Members at the Bar wish to continue their conversations, I shall appreciate it if they will do so on the other side of the swing doors, so that those of us who are involved in the Committee can hear the proceedings.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to you, Miss Boothroyd.
If a security operation goes wrong and the individual concerned discovers that his property has been burgled or bugged and makes a complaint to the police, they should be able quickly to establish that it was done under the Home Secretary's warrant. In those circumstances, the police should inform the individual accordingly. If a person returns to his property and discovers an intruder whom he then detains or arrests and hands over to the police, it will be most unsatisfactory if the police allow that intruder to go free without giving the victim an explanation and the information that the intruder is a member of the Security Service.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that, where an individual discovers that his property has been burgled or bugged and complains, he will be informed of the warrant and of his right to complain to the tribunal.

Mr. John Patten: Sadly, the amendment would provide a ready means for anyone who suspected that the Security Service had discovered his or her activities to check, through the police, whether a property warrant existed in respect of any property in which he or she had an interest. I rather doubt that the hon. Gentleman meant that to be the effect of the amendment, but that would be its effect in practice. For example, a spy or terrorist would have a ready-made route to finding out as promptly as possible whether he was under surveillance. The Bill, however, contains a ready-made route for a citizen who feels aggrieved to go through a complaints mechanism. As with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, leaflets will be made widely available to anyone who wants them in such places as police stations, public libraries and citizens advice bureaux, making clear the avenues of complaint.
12 midnight
I do not think that the matter can be dealt with on a case-by case basis in the light of a particular warrant operation, as the amendment proposes. I appreciate the point about individual liberty with which the hon.


Gentleman is trying to deal, but whatever the purpose of the amendment its net effect would be to provide an open door for anyone engaged in illicit activity to damage the security of the state.

Mr. Buchan: The Government have said, "We quite agree that individual liberty will be expended, but it is important that we retain the provision." That is nonsense. There is no question of a spate of individuals setting in train the demolition, stealing or removal of business papers or other material from their own homes—in such a way that the police accept that a prima facie case has been established—to try to investigate whether they are being bugged by MI5. Some of us have suspected that in the past, but by no stretch of the imagination would we have created an apparent crime that would convince the police that prima facie evidence of a crime existed.
When civil liberties are weighed against a minor problem facing the Security Service, the House should always come down on the side of individual liberty. The Government are a disgrace to parliamentary democracy and the liberty of this country.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister always responds to perfectly reasonable suggestions by claiming that the amendment, if carried, would give aid and succour to a terrorist or spy. I can understand that: I do not particularly want to end up dead in my bed having been killed by a terrorist, and if I thought that the Bill would protect me from such a sad eventuality I should be a little more enthusiastic about it.
What concerns me about the amendment, which is perfectly reasonable, is how individuals who feel that they have suffered from criminal activity—because their houses have been broken into—know that they have grounds of complaint to the tribunal. Will the police officer be able to tell them, "Don't worry about it, Jimmy. It was not an ordinary burglar; it was someone who had managed to get a warrant from the Transport Office at the House of Commons"? It has been suggested that that might be the most convenient way of obtaining one.
I should like to know the mechanisms, just in case I happen to be on the receiving end of a burglary and happen to catch the individual. I get in touch with Forest Gate police station; the police come and take the individual away. When I go along to find out whether I can press charges, will the police then say, "There is nothing to worry about; it was done through a warrant"? If the individual has the right of redress through the tribunal, what information will be given that will enable him to lodge a complaint? If no such information is given, what is the point?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Supposing someone detains someone in his property and takes him down to the police station, what do the police do? Do they just let that individual walk away and give no explanation at all, leaving one to assume that it is not incompetence on the part of the police but the fact that they know a warrant existed?
I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply because I did take the trouble in this amendment to make it clear that there had to be prime facie evidence that some criminal activity had actually occurred. As far as I can see, anybody who is likely to be involved in terrorist or other

activities who finds someone has broken into or bugged his property is going to know perfectly well that the Security Service was involved, or at least he will jump to that conclusion. What we are describing in this amendment is the protection for the individual whose civil liberties have actually been infringed, and wrongly infringed, so that they can have some clear evidence to take to the tribunal.
I also suggest to the Minister that there is a practical problem. There is a great deal of disquiet in this country at the moment that often the police do not take investigations in burglaries sufficiently seriously. Is the Minister suggesting that every time an individual that feels his property has been burgled and the police have not pursued it with sufficient diligence he should refer it to the security tribunal to try and find out whether it is merely that the police have not shown much enthusiasm for his complaint or whether no crime had been committed because a warrant had been issued?
Surely the Minister does not want to get thousands of cases being referred to the tribunal. He wants to make sure that those people who have a legitimate complaint have their cases investigated, and to avoid a huge number of complaints coming in. It does seem to me that there ought to be a clear process by which people can be told, if it has become obvious to them that their property is being interfered with, that it was done under the due process of a warrant.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am not going to detain the Committee long. The point that I want to make is that this Committee seems to be inordinately relaxed about the way civil liberties are disappearing. There seems to be no real scrutiny of this clause or previous clauses. This is a Committee stage. If the Minister wants to reduce the whole thing to low farce, we should, by all means, continue in the way that we are going on.
I ask legitimate questions. I do not want to keep myself out of my own bed tonight. I am not finding it particularly enjoyable to be here, and I am sure that is true of right hon. and hon. Members. Those of us who are taking part in this Committee stage are here because we want to assure ourselves about certain rather disturbing aspects of this Bill. Up to now we have been gravely disappointed, and we shall go away far more worried about this Bill than we were when we arrived here for the Committee stage.
I ask that Ministers at least answer some of the questions directed specifically towards the clause stand part debate by me. I want to know how the procedure works. Is it unreasonable, even at eight minutes past midnight, to ask some specific questions in what is supposed to be the Committee stage of a Bill, when we can ask Ministers questions, and Ministers can respond? The rules of debate that apply to a Second Reading and other stages do not apply here. This is where we are supposed to be giving scrutiny to this Bill, and up to now we most certainly have not done that. We have been derelict in our duty, because the Minister has refused to treat this measure seriously.

Mr. John Patten: I have given a full and helpful explanation to the Committee, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

THE SECURITY SERVICE COMMISSIONER

Mr. Allason: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'appoint' to end of line 7 and insert 'two Commissioners for the purpose of this Act.'

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 60, in page 3, line 5, leave out 'a Commissioner' and insert 'an Inspector General'.
No. 2, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 68, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
No. 3, in page 3, line 9, leave out
'his appointment and there shall be paid to him'
and insert
'their appointment and there shall be paid to them'.
Clause 4, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) In addition to his functions under the subsequent provisions of this Act, the Inspector General shall be under a duty—
(a) to monitor the compliance by the Service with its operational policies;
(b) to review the operational activities of the Service; and
(c) to submit certificates pursuant to subsection (4A) below; and
(d) to keep under review applications made and warrants issued under section 3 and, in particular, the execution of such warrants'.
No. 4, page 3, line 11, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
No. 5, in page 3, line 12, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 6, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
No. 79, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'section 3 above' and insert 'this Act'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 8, in page 3, line 16, leave out from 'as' to end of line 17 and insert
'they may require for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions'.
No. 9, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 64, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
No. 10, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
No. 11, in page 3, line 19, leave out
'him on any matter relating to his'
and insert
'them on any matter relating to their'.
No. 13, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 65, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
No. 14, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 70, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
No. 15, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 71, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 72, in page 3, line 32, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Inspector General'.
No. 17, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.
No. 18, in clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out
'Commissioner shall have the functions conferred on him'
and insert
'Commissioners shall have the functions conferred on them'.
No. 19, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
New Clause 1—Duty of Commissioners to attend meetings of Security Service Directorate—
'It shall be the duty of the Commissioners appointed under this Act to attend all meetings of the Security Service Directorate unless the Commissioners decide that the discharge of their functions does not require such attendance.'.
New Clause 8—The Security Service Commission—
'(1) The Prime Minister shall appoint a Commission consisting of not more than three persons for the purpose of scrutinising the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Service.
(2) Members of the Commission shall hold office in accordance with the terms of their appointment and there shall be paid to them by the Secretary of State such allowances as the Treasury may determine.
(3) It shall be the duty of every member of the Service to disclose or give to the Commission such documents or information as they may require for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions.
(4) The Commission shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the Secretary of State and may at any time report to him on the discharge of their functions.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Commissions under subsection (4) above together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (6) below.
(6) If it appears to the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Commission, that publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Service the Secretary of State may exclude that matter for the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Commission and with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers, provide the Commission with such staff as the Secretary of State thinks necessary for the discharge of its functions.
No. 20, in schedule 1, page 5, line 36, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 21, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'he finds' and insert 'they find'.
No. 22, in page 5, line 38, leave out 'he' and insert 'they'.
No. 23, in page 5, line 41, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 24, in page 5, line 41, leave out
'his conclusion on any complaint so far as referred to him'
and insert
'their conclusion on any complaint so far as referred to them'.
No. 25, in page 5, line 50, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 26, in page 6, line 2, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 27, in page 6, line 4, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 28, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'Commissioner' has and insert 'Commissioners' have.
No. 29, in page 6, line 20, leave out 'he considers' and insert' they consider'.
No. 30, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'Commissioner considers' and insert Commissioners consider'.
No. 31, in page 6, line 23, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 32, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 33, in page 6, line 37, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 34, in page 6, line 38, leave out
'Commissioner may report any matter referred to him'
and insert
'Commissioners may report any matter referred to them'.
No. 35, in schedule 2, page 7, line 40, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 36, in title, line 4, leave out 'a Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.
No. 37, in title, line 6, leave out 'Commissioner' and insert 'Commissioners'.

Mr. Allason: I shall not detain the Committee long. I fear that the late hour has in considerable part been caused by the Minister's performance. I take no pleasure in saying that. The Bill and the amendments are about checks and balances. My hon. Friend has consistently pushed aside the initiatives that have been taken. He has pushed aside the Canadian precedent by talking about the so-called British experience. He was blithely dismissive of a series of constructive proposals and he has rubbished useful initiatives.
That is odd, bearing in mind that earlier my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a much more positive line and was helpful. Indeed, he conceded that there have been problems in the past with supervision and control of the Security Service which it would be incorrect to ignore.
Is there any matter of greater importance than the security of the nation? The amendments seek once again, probably in vain, to impose checks and balances. They seek to double the number of commissioners. Canada has no fewer than five members of the security and intelligence review committee. I am not going that far, but I urge the Government to consider two commissioners.
The Minister has persuaded Government Members this evening—I am as guilty as everybody else—to go through the Lobbies and authorise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment and the Secretary of State for Energy to issue warrants to burgle homes. That is utterly bizarre. At the same time, he tells us that everything is safe in the hands of the Home Secretary.
Let me give a couple of examples of where the Minister's confidence appears to have gone a little adrift. He rubbished the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that there be a limit on the service of a director-general of 10 years. He said that it was unlikely to be longer than that. He clearly was not aware that the first director-general of the Security Service remained in that post for no fewer than 31 years.
There was an attempt last night to impose some kind of parliamentary oversight. That was rejected. So too was the proposal to have some kind of arrangement with Privy Councillors. Again, that was a reasonable attempt to share the burdens of the Secretary of State. That too was cast aside. We have now had a ridiculous performance over judicial warrants. The last Division took place because the

Minister, for reasons that are still not clear to me, seemed determined to give authority for burglary and telephone intercept warrants to Secretaries of State who have nothing to do with those responsibilities. Indeed, that was in clear contravention of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
The amendments do not cast doubt on the commissioner's role. I seek to have two commissioners because experience tells us—I do not share my hon. Friend's confidence on the history of the Security Service—that when a single individual has overseen the role of the Security Service things have gone wrong. The examples are legion. I shall mention just three. There was the chairman of the Security Commission who was clearly misled over the Bettaney case; the chairman of the Vassall committee, going back years ago, and the evidence supplied by the Security Service; and the more notorious case of Lord Denning.
I promised to be brief, so I shall merely urge the Committee to consider doubling the number of commissioners to two to avoid the danger of a single individual being nobbled. Anybody with a knowledge of what has happened in the past will concede that that is a real danger.

Mr. Maclennan: This large group of amendments may be characterised as seeming to provide for the oversight of the security services in various aspects by means more secure than those set out in clause 4. I shall confine my remarks to two of the amendments, although I support strongly several others, especially new clause 8 and amendments Nos. 60, 68, 62, 7, 64, 65, 70, 71 and 72, which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) may wish to address. I want to deal with amendments Nos. 62 and 79.
Amendment No. 62, again, is based on the Canadian experience. It proposes that the inspector general—the officer whose functions are, essentially, those of the commissioner as proposed in clause 4—will have a more wide-ranging duty of scrutiny and supervision than under clause 4. It is appropriate for a service costing about £100 million per annum that there should be such oversight of the service beyond consideration by the Secretary of State of warrant practices, which we have been considering in relation to clause 3. It is right to ensure by establishing such an officer—the Government contemplate that he should be of the highest judicial standing—that not only how the Secretary of State has discharged his duties under clause 3, but whether the service is conducting itself appropriately in accordance with the Bill is scrutinised. It is important for that officer to stand apart, to some extent, from the direction of the service, which will be the responsibility of the director-general at the apex of the service. It is clear that a Minister cannot effectively do the job. That case has been partially conceded by the Home Secretary in seeking to appoint a commissioner. Amendment No. 79 seeks to ensure that the inspector general shall keep under review the exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers not only under clause 3 but generally.
I accept that the provisions for warrants may constitute the single most important aspect of the functions of the Secretary of State under the Bill, but there are several other important functions of the Secretary of State which should


be subject to review. I draw attention to one provision in particular. Under the Bill it is open to the Secretary of State to specify the circumstances in which information held by the Security Service may or may not be released for consideration in determining whether a person should be employed. That very considerable power is exercised not under clause 3 but under clause 2. It seems to me that the power to intervene to affect employment opportunities—not only in respect of individuals, who would be entitled to make a complaint under the procedure set out in schedule 1, but in respect of the guidelines under which such information may be released—should be supervised by a commissioner as it has to be done in accordance with the provisions made by the Secretary of State.
The proposal represents a modest extension of the commissioner's powers. I can see no argument of principle or of practice against it. I hope that the Minister will therefore respond positively.

Mr. Aitken: In common with many of the amendments, new clause 8 returns to the question of oversight. Yesterday we had a long discussion about parliamentary oversight, which the Home Secretary rejected on the somewhat curious ground that Parliament could not be trusted. We also examined at some length the notion of a non-parliamentary, Canadian-type oversight, which the Home Secretary rejected on the somewhat curious ground that, although it worked well in Canada, it could not possibly work well in this country.
New clause 8 is a probing proposal, whose purpose is to find out whether any form of oversight would be acceptable to the Home Secretary—in particular a form of oversight that fulfils the three important criteria that he spelt out in the days when he was by no means hostile to the idea of oversight. On 3 December 1986, in response to a motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the Home Secretary suggested that an oversight system might be acceptable if three tests were passed—the tests of preserving secrecy, of increased public confidence in the House, and of the need to avoid blunting and diminishing the clear responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in monitoring the security services.
New clause 8 falls firmly within those parameters and meets all those criteria. It involves what might be called "professional oversight"—a group of genuine professionals who would have nothing to do with Parliament, politics or Privy Councillors and who could go behind the barrier of secrecy to give a vital dimension of continuity. Such continuity is most important in the light of the revelation by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that to his knowledge no incoming Government are allowed to examine the previous Government's monitoring of the security services. Such a group could monitor, above all, the effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Service. I cannot imagine a softer touch being applied to any organisation in terms of performance review and the monitoring of professional efficiency than is applied to the Security Service, which is simply monitored by the Home Secretary of the day who is arguably the busiest Minister in the Government.
The case for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Service stems from the famous case of Michael John Bettaney. That gentleman lives on in the folklore of the security services. Although he now languishes in Coldingley prison for his treachery, he will

surely one day have his statue in the hall of history and fame of world security services because he caused extraordinary changes in our own Security Service, without which the grave defects of the past would still undoubtedly be with us.
No novelist could have invented Michael John Bettaney and if any novelist had invented him, that novelist could not have written a plot in which Michael John Bettaney rose steadily to higher and higher posts of importance within our Security Service. He was an alcoholic, a misfit, a fantasist, a curious wild and way-out character, whose fatal weakness was alcohol in a big way. He used to be so drunk among his Security Service colleagues that he could not stand up. On one occasion, he even set fire to himself. He had two convictions for criminal dishonesty. At social occasions in the MI5 mess he used to say things such as, "Come and see me in my dacha when I retire". "I am sure the East Germans would look after me better." "I am working for the wrong side." Incidentally, those quotations were taken from the Security Commission's own report on the Bettaney case.
However, despite all those clues that something might be slightly wrong with Mr. Bettaney, he was steadily promoted, even though officials had gone to their superiors to mention such incidents. After that epic saga, Bettaney sent notes to the Soviet embassy, revealing the order of battle and all kinds of secrets. He took all sorts of documents home but the Soviet embassy could not believe that such a figure existed and completely ignored him, so no great damage was done by Mr. Bettaney.
Mr. Bettaney's story was finally told in the 1985 report of the Security Commission. From the Bettaney story it became perfectly obvious that the Security Service was in dramatic need of wholesale managerial reform. It must be stressed that none of this would have come to light had not the story that I have told come to a denouement with Mr. Bettaney sending letters to the Soviet embassy and, disappointed that there was no reply, finally knocking on the door of the Soviet embassy, thus getting caught.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not possible that MI5 was so busy at the time that it is understandable that that lapse took place? If MI5 was spending all its time—as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) told us earlier—trying to discover whether Lord Wilson was a Soviet agent, surely so many resources had to go into that that MI5 could not worry about other matters.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman has a point below his humour because the same mentality and managerial efficiency that went into investigating the fantasies about Lord Wilson was the same kind of business efficiency that could not spot Michael Bettaney. There was a deep flaw in the whole of the Security Service. It is as well that the Committee recognises that successive Home Secretaries in charge of the monitoring of the efficiency of the Security Service had failed to notice that there was anything wrong, despite repeated assurances to the House from Home Office Ministers that they were monitoring the Security Service well.
The case that I am deploying has nothing to do with politics or Parliament. I am saying that there is a case for an ongoing business or managerial oversight of the security services by professionals within the barrier. On one occasion only the Security Commission was able to do that.
In my new clause I recommend that there should be three commissioners and that they should be, for example, a former senior officer in the armed services, an academic who has specialised in the study of Communism or terrorism, a trade union official, a senior civil servant or a diplomat. They should certainly not be former members of the intelligence community, but quite separate and independent from its history. It should be a genuine independent oversight body with a small staff working on a continuous but part-time basis.
The entire purpose of this is to ask such questions as arose out of the Bettaney case. For example, is the Security Service satisfied with the level of training and education? We know that Security Service officers are given training in what might be called trade craft and mechanics. On the Irish terrorism desk, however, there is some indication that there is little education in the true history and the politics of Ireland which would give the Security Service official the breadth of knowledge needed to grasp the dimensions of the problem.
Someone should look at the extraordinary turnover of directors-general of the Security Service—five in the past 10 years. There have been about four directors of the counter-espionage branch in the past 10 years. Someone should look closely, above all, at the management of personnel and resources. Those are the sort of performance review duties which need to be carried out on a permanent basis. I submit that the Home Secretary has not the time, the thoroughness or the continuity of approach to tackle those matters in the depth required.
I cannot understand why this country carries on being the only democracy in the English-speaking world which has no form of independent oversight, but simply says that we can trust one man—the Home Secretary of the day. He is assisted, no doubt, from time to time by the Prime Minister, but basically there is one Minister to do the job which the Security Commission did on one occasion in such a devastating way, but that was just a one-off ad hoc committee and we want something continuous.

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend is right about the point that he made about the Bettaney Security Commission report, but it is worth reminding the House that the parts that have been quoted were the publicly available sections of the report, and that the Security Commission reported at that time that there was an equally large and more damning annex to that report that was never published.

Mr. Aitken: I am always getting nuggets of inside information from my hon. Friend which strenghthen my argument, and I am grateful to him.
A permanent monitoring body of the kind I am suggesting could have the advantage of being able to be permanently behind the secrecy barrier and, therefore, completely fall within the basic criteria set by the Home Secretary.
It has not been emphasised enough that in this strange world of the Security Service one of its most important roles is that of long haul counter-espionage. One must watch for years in this world and the monitoring in that area needs to be long on continuity and carried out on a long-term basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) made a valuable intervention in

this debate. He reminded us that the world of intelligence was a jigsaw, which is a good word for it. Such a jigsaw can only be put together and watched by those whose lifespan of monitoring is far longer than that of a politician or Home Secretary, which is why some form of permanent oversight body, on a purely professional managerial level, is highly desirable.
I commend this proposition to the House in the great hope that the Minister will recognise that new clause 8 falls firmly into the category of acceptable oversight as outlined by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and, if there were any justice in this world regarding amendments, it should be entirely acceptable.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I want to support amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65 and consequential amendments Nos. 60, 68 and so on. The consequential amendments indicate the change from the term commissioner to inspector general. Essentially it is a cosmetic change, but it keeps the thread of continuity with the Canadian model.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 65, which should have been debated with amendment No. 63 in the first group of amendments yesterday, is to provide the opportunity for reinforcing ministerial responsibility and therefore accountability. The inspector general's job is to act internally to monitor the issuance of warrants, and compliance with those warrants, to determine that the service has acted ethically, appropriately and in accordance with the law, and to report back to the responsible Minister. That mechanism in law ensures that there is one limb of oversight, primarily on behalf of Ministers, which makes a report. This is set out clearly in amendments, but to get a more coherent picture my hon. Friend should read the amendments in conjunction with amendment No. 63. The amendments deal with the internal means of monitoring.
The overall structure that we are seeking is ministerial responsibility to Parliament. Ministers will have an internal inspector general who monitors the issue of warrants and who reports on the conduct of the service and the pursuit of its objectives. That would ensure that the service conforms with the law, with propriety and with the instructions and directions from the political element of the management of the security service.
That is the basis of our actions. If the Government accepted those processes, they would be reinforced by an external oversight procedure, which would give the public confidence that it was not just an internal matter.

Mr. John Patten: The suggestions put forward in this interesting group of amendments fall into three categories. First, there is the idea of an inspector general, proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Secondly, there is the idea of non-executive directors or commissioners proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech. When he reads the record of the debate in Hansard he will see that everyone's questions have been answered by Ministers. He may wish to reassess his remarks in the light of that. The third suggestion was the full scheme outlined in new clause 8 for up to three commissioners, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. All the amendments and new clauses illustrate the muddle and confusion that could arise when there are attempts to


distort and change the clear statutory nature and function of the Security Service commissioner proposed in the Bill into a mutant new person with a new set of powers or into a group of people with de facto unlimited and unclear powers.
Let us consider the widening of the oversight powers. Whether one is talking about an inspector general or two or three commissioners, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I believe that the same impossible situation arises. In effect, the proposals give power without responsibility. That may not be the intention of those who have drawn up the amendments and new clauses, but they provide a recipe for intervention and muddle which could, on occasions, be dangerous and does nothing for those who want the director-general of the service and the Minister under whose authority he works to be accountable to Parliament. That accountability is already achieved by the clear structure set out in the Bill.
Wider functions of review and scrutiny can only usurp the responsibilities of Ministers and of the director-general. It is that belief which separates my right hon. Friend and myself from people like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who looks as though he is hovering to intervene and to whom I had better give way.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The whole purpose of the amendments is to support the Minister. How can the Minister assure himself that the political objectives of the system are carried out in the way he wants by the service? If things are concealed from the responsible Minister, that is a matter of concern for the Minister and for the House. Things have been so concealed in the past. To assist Ministers in their responsibilities, we tried to construct a clear mandate for an official with the power to overlook the activities of the service. That was intended to support the Minister, not to muddy the waters. Our aim was to enable the Minister to assure the House that he was informed, that he understood what was happening in the service and that it was done in accordance with his requirements.

Mr. Patten: I appreciate the constructive way in which my hon. Friends put forward the amendment, but in a previous Adjournment debate I described the clear line of relations from the service to the director-general, from him to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and in certain circumstances from the Home Secretary to the Prime Minister. Those relations are based on clear lines of responsibility and accountability, the commissioner always being at my right hon. Friend's elbow or looking over his shoulder. In practice, these matters cannot be reviewed effectively by someone who does not also carry the responsibility for what he reviews.

Mr. Shepherd: Before I came to the House I was a business man. I employed an accountant, who was responsible to me. He handled money and affairs close to the success, or otherwise, of the business. Fortunately, the law also requires that independent auditors come in to do the same accounting. That was helpful to me, as my knowledge of book-keeping might have been limited. The practice of everyday life is not inappropriate for the security services. The Government are in extraordinary awe of their security services. Such mystification should not exist. It is in all our interests that the security services

be made accountable, but Ministers are acting in a subservient way and claiming that everything is perfect as it is.
I have eschewed listing historical cases of the problems that have occurred, but we must remember experience elsewhere. Reform has been predicated on massive scandals in almost every civilised western democracy in which the security services have got out of control or not been kept on a leash. We want to avoid that happening here. The Government's deference is as much as to say that they cannot discuss these issues with the House—or introduce the rule of law—or, indeed, do anything at all because it would not be appropriate. Every time a route out is offered to Ministers—the Bettaney case has been mentioned, and there were many others before it—Ministers say that it is impossible.
Is the Minister in such awe of, or so subordinate to, the security services that he cannot weigh up the rule of law, common decency and appropriate action for the courts? Liberty and freedom must be balanced in any decision on how to control and review the service.

Mr. Patten: That was a long intervention, but I will do my best to reply to it.
I accept that my hon. Friend needed an accountancy service from outside for his business. He had his auditors. In the same way, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary closely audits what goes on in the Security Service. He is responsible not for a successful business, such as that which my hon. Friend ran, but for a non-commercial organisation which deals with the security of the state. That is the difference which separates my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and others from the Home Secretary and me. It is the divide that was between us in the earlier part of the debate when we discussed judicial intervention in the warrant-making process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would like to see some functions reviewed in different ways by outsiders, and to that end he has put forward helpful amendments. In practice, these matters cannot be effectively reviewed by people who do not also carry the responsibilities for the matters that they would review. That is the issue of judgment that separates my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and me.
12.45 am
I can illustrate that by saying that the degree to which the amendments would require the overseer—if I may use that shorthand term—to become involved in the detailed operations and policy of the Security Service is startling. That would be an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of giving people free range over the activities of the whole service. The same argument applies when we look in detail at the role of the inspector general. I am now moving from ' the general to the three specific cases that have been put forward. Not much would be achieved by way of public assurance because the inspector general in his other guises would be responsible to Ministers for their work.
It seems impossible for annual reports to be published without dangerously breaching the security within which the service must operate. Each of the proposals suggests that that should happen. Such reports could not go into many, if any, of the wider review findings. The director-general would not be much helped in the discharge of his responsibilities by the appointment of an


inspector general. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not be helped in the discharge of his responsibilities by such an appointment.
The idea of two non-executive directors or commissioners was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). He seems to think that two heads would be better than one and does not seem to think there is any special advantage in appointing senior judges to these positions. We do not think that this job would be best carried out by a two-man crew or perhaps even the three-man crew suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. From the amendment drafted, I presume, by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, it is not clear whether the commissioners would jointly review every warrant decision by the Secretary of State and come to a collective view. If they disagreed, who would arbitrate and decide what was to happen?
We attach considerable importance to the need for the commissioner to have senior judicial experience for carrying out his adjudicating functions and grave responsibilities. New clause 8 certainly does not disbar the idea of senior judicial figures being appointed as commissioners. However, the sort of work that the Bill identifies for the commissioner should not be carried out by a wider commission. I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary think that these are matters for an independently minded judge of standing and authority drawn from the senior judicial bench and not matters for a committee.
The work of a commission of up to three people would be much wider than the work provided for in the Bill and would be a substantial change to the way in which the Bill is cast. For the reasons that I have given, the Government are clear that such a wider role is not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South asked whether my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would regard his scheme as providing acceptable oversight. It is clear from what my right hon. Friend said yesterday and earlier today that such a scheme does not fall into the category of acceptable oversight. Clearly, a substantial difference in principle and view divides my hon. Friends and me. I regret that, and I hope that they will not press their amendments.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister having rejected any form of parliamentary oversight, clause 4 offers a chance of securing administrative oversight. The idea of parliamentary scrutiny was not acceptable to the Minister because, he said, he could not trust Members. His argument against administrative scrutiny rests on the claim that all would be muddle and confusion.
I do not follow the Minister's logic. I see no difference between having a panel of commissioners under this legislation and the existing prisons inspectorate, which has oversight but which does not have political responsibility. Either the Minister has not read his brief properly or he is not acquainted with the structure of his Department.
I say that because there are many examples in the Home Office of groups of administrators exercising oversight without carrying responsibility of the type that we are discussing. That is no coincidence because of all the great offices of state, the case load, complexity and accident-proneness of the Home Office is the greatest.
It cannot sensibly be argued that the Home Secretary is in a position to exercise oversight without the assistance of some of the structures to which hon. Members have referred. We regret the Minister's failure seriously to address our arguments on administrative oversight. Instead, he has thrown up a smokescreen of bogus considerations. There is no reason why the structure that we propose should not work in practice. Will the hon. Gentleman at least explain why this structure would not work in principle?

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister rejected the various forms of oversight proposed in this long series of amendments by saying that they all provided for power without responsibility, and he thus swept them aside. But the commissioner whom he envisages establishing to conduct part of the job of oversight will, by the hon. Gentleman's definition, enjoy power without responsibility. Why does he seek to confine this oversight simply to his role in the issuing of warrants and the investigation of complaints?
Will the Minister now reply to my amendment No. 79, which would at least give the commissioner responsibility, not for supervising the entire Security Service, but for supervising the Minister's role under the measure? I drew attention to the Minister's powers to deprive people of employment on the ground that they had in some way been found unacceptable to the Security Service. Although the hour is late, we are dealing with matters of great importance. After all, we are having a very short debate on truncating the civil liberties of the people by a measure which empowers the Security Service to do what without the Bill would be illegal.
The Minister's attempts to answer the case put by his hon. Friends were perfunctory, but at least he tried to answer it. My amendment would enlarge in a modest way, without infringing any principle or practical consideration, the role of the high judicial officer, whom he and his right hon. Friend think it appropriate to supervise the issue of warrants. Why could not that officer supervise the conduct of the duties of the Secretary of State in respect of the provisions of the Bill generally?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (4).
I move this amendment in search of information as well as to make a proposal that I hope may command itself to the Government. I am not fully clear about the impact of clause 5(4), which provides that
The decisions of the Tribunal and the Commissioner…shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court.
That appears to deprive the citizen of the right of judicial review enjoyed at present and appears to be the deliberate intention of the Bill. However, the proposal may go further than that. It may deprive the citizen of the right to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights. If that is the case, that should be explicit in the Bill. If it is the Government's intention to exclude the jurisdiction of the European Commission or the Court of Human Rights, it should be so provided in the Bill. Does the Minister intend


to notify the Commission of an intention to derogate from the convention in any way so as to deprive the citizen of that right which is currently being exercised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman)?
The Minister nods his head negatively and I am, therefore, living in hope that he does not intend to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights, but we better have that from the Minister's own lips.

Mr. Buchan: I cannot resist following that beautiful remark which appears to describe the conduct of Ministers over the past few days. They have either been nodding their heads negatively or shaking their heads positively on issue after issue. I understand the depth of feeling experienced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We have received the same negative approach from the Government on every issue. I cannot understand it. We suggest a judge and the Government say, "We cannot accept anything judicial." We suggest a commissioner and they say "We cannot accept a commissioner." The sole Government intention that has emerged has been to keep MI5 inviolable. I understand the difficulties of a junior Minister, but the Home Secretary shook and nodded his head with equal positivism and negativism.
Once upon a time, Ministers received their instructions from the Box, whose occupants said, "Resist", occasionally. "Accept". and often, "Resist, but agree to consider". There is no such middle ground here; there is only resistance. Ministers' instructions are not to listen to and consider the debate or even to obtain the best decisions for the security services.
A number of proposals have been put forward, not to criticise the operation of the Security Service, but to attempt to make it even more efficient. However when we complain about the infringement of liberty—from personal experience and other factors—and when other people—including the Conservative Back Bench element who are knowledgeable about MI5—and—two hon. Gentlemen who are concerned above all about the freedom of the individual, the liberty of the state and parliamentary democracy as well as the efficiency of the service support us, the Government do not listen.
1 am
Why in heaven's name, when we are discussing an issue which is crucial to our freedom and our liberties, has a Minister been sent to this Committee—Parliament is supposed to be the sovereign authority in this country—with one instruction—to prevent a Report stage? Are the Government afraid that if the debate continues for another week or two more evidence and more case histories will be produced? I believe that Opposition Front Bench Members made an appalling error in agreeing to a two-day timetable. If the Bill had been considered in Committee under normal procedures, there would have been hours of discussion on issue after issue and amendment after amendment. I was pleased to learn that the Bill was to be debated on the Floor of the House. I considered that it was the proper place to examine our problems. Now, because of the Government's behaviour during the two-day slot that we accepted, mistakenly or with difficulty, the Bill has been shuffled through without ever touching the conscience or the consciousness of this country. We have witnessed shocking behaviour, especially as the Bill is linked with a number of other forthcoming measures.
What does the amendment seek that the Government find so difficult to accept? After the tribunal has made a decision, someone may wish to appeal. That will not reveal any issue of security. It will merely provide a little safety for some individuals who have been caught up in such issues. Is the Minister really saying that indviduals cannot appeal to the European Court of Human Rights? Under clause 1(3) foreign elements can be investigated by MI5, but because we have brought about such an appalling regime of lack of justice, lack of appeal and lack of openness in this country, it will be impossible even to appeal abroad. If that is the case, a new tyranny will be deployed throughout all the available courts in Europe and elsewhere. The Minister is shaming the nation.
The amendment is mild and does not shame our liberties. The Bill is pulling away the last strand to which someone can appeal. For God's sake, the Minister should respond or at least allow the matter to be discussed. He should consider it instead of being afraid of a Report stage. He should send for the Home Secretary—we shall discuss the matter until he returns. At this final stage he should allow that to happen.
I am appalled by what I have seen tonight and by the way in which the Minister has treated his Back Benchers. But I am more appalled at what he is doing to the freedoms of this country. We have seen the record of MI5. Points have been raised about the errors committed by most security services when they are under a dictatorship or when they are not sufficiently controlled. No methods of control have been allowed or considered. There is no measure of appeal. No man who has been burgled can find out whether he was subject to the actions of MI5 or the Security Service. Now the Government are saying that the decisions of the tribunal established to deal with those problems cannot be investigated. We are not all absolutely correct on all issues. Let us leave a loophole through which some errors can be rectified. We appeal to the Minister to do that. If he accepts the amendment, the matter can be considered on Report and the Home Office can consider it again.
I fear that the civil servants have listened with more openness than the Ministers. Perhaps the Prime Minister can be brought to her senses if she is causing this. Above all, the Minister might come back on Report with a paper which said, "Resist, but reconsider at a later stage if forced to." It is late, but we would love that to happen.

Mr. Ian Gow: In so far as I understood the speech of the former leader of the Social Democratic Party, he felt that there should be an appellate procedure involving the European Court.

Mr. Maclennan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gow: I understood the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to say that there should be an appellate procedure involving the European Court. I believe that he was not in his place when, earlier today, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport told the House that the Government's excellent proposals for privatising BREL will require the European Commission's consent. I regard that statement as an affront to the House, and I am against the amendment that I thought was moved by the SDP's former leader.
If anything is clear about this country's security services, it is that we do not require a right of appeal using any apparatus involving Europe.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman makes his analysis of what he thought was said, and states that he is not in favour of any appeal involving Europe. However, the Bill concerns itself also with this country's judiciary procedure. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is against citizens of this country having access to an appellate procedure in this country? If not, he should support the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Gow: I was confining my remarks only to the idea that a European tribunal should have jurisdiction over decisions taken under the Bill's provisions. It was at that aspect that I directed my remarks.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: We are signatories to a convention that already makes us liable, should the need arise, to appearances before the European Court. Unfortunately, the Government find themselves in some difficulties in respect of that court. It has found against us on a number of occasions, and that happened also to Labour Governments. The court's existence is a fact, and it is also a fact that we are signatories to the agreement. If my hon. Friend is saying we should tear up the agreement, that is not germane to the amendments before the Committee.

Mr. Gow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity he gives me to say that I deeply deplore the fact that we are a signatory to an agreement that gives to a foreign jurisdiction the right to impose its will on the decisions of the House of Commons and to superimpose its will on United Kingdom tribunals. Because some right hon. and hon. Members still believe that the ultimate tribunal in this land ought to be the House of Lords, and because the SDP's former leader seemed to assert the legal superiority of the European Court, I wanted to make that plain in this my first, my only, and—you will be glad to know, Sir Paul—my last intervention in Committee.

Mr. John Patten: I must disappoint the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I can say no more than that to him.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—and I acknowledge the pointed intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)—clause 5(4) does not exclude the Strasbourg bodies, so the European convention on human rights will apply. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself are convinced that the Bill's apparatus for helping the aggrieved citizen—the tribunal and the commissioner—will guarantee that a successful application will never go before the European Court.
I have only one other thing to say. It does not surprise me that no other hon. Member in the Chamber—apart from one member of the Social, Liberal and Democratic party—has put his name to the amendment. I read a rather cruel article about the SLD in the Financial Times yesterday, which said of its Front Bench spokesmen:
Performances in the Commons have rarely been inspiring, some barely competent, and there is thinly-disguised despair among certain Democrat MPs about the ability and commitment of some of their colleagues.
I know that that did not refer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), because he has been sitting here for the last two days paying close attention to the Bill and making some important points. I must tell him, however, that the net effect of amendment No. 80 is absolutely dotty. It would undermine the security

of the state. It would allow an aggrieved citizen to bring before a court of law in this country all the details that would be necessary for the judicial review process, and whether that process took place in open court or in camera, the defence—including those acting for international terrorists—would have available to them all the information that they would simply love to have.
The intention behind the amendment may have been a fine one, but its effect—as I have said—is absolutely dotty, and I urge the Committee to reject it if it is forced to a Division.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the amendment be made—

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: As many as are of that opinion say Aye, to the contrary No. I think the Noes have it—

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was plainly on his feet with the intention of replying. With respect, this is a Committee stage.

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was seeking to catch my eye, but if he was, wholly exceptionally, I shall reverse engines and call him.

Mr. Maclennan: I am exceedingly grateful, Sir Paul, and regret that I may not have made my intentions clear.
I listened to the Minister with interest. These matters are at present subject to review in the courts. If it has been alleged that the security services have burgled or bungled their way into the homes of private citizens, they can appear before the courts. The suggestion that that should still be the case does not seem to me as dotty as the Minister has suggested, and to seek—as I did at the beginning of my remarks—an assurance that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights would not be excluded by the clause is to introduce a matter of considerable importance.
I am bound to say that, in the light of some of the Minister's earlier assurances, given no authority at all, I find it difficult even to accept his assertion that the plain language of the Bill does not mean what it says—which is that any court may not consider these matters, and that the issues
shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court.
By what rubric of construction is the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg not "any court" within the meaning of the Bill? What provision of what statute makes this not apply to that court? I ask the Minister to address that question, and unless he does I feel bound to divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 66, Noes 139.

Division No. 37][1.14 am

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buchan, Norman


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don






Doran, Frank
McLeish, Henry


Douglas, Dick
Maclennan, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Foster, Derek
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galbraith, Sam
Nellist, Dave


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Sheerman, Barry


Haynes, Frank
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Ingram, Adam
Wilson, Brian


Kennedy, Charles
Winnick, David


McAllion, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McAvoy, Thomas
Wray, Jimmy


Macdonald, Calum A.



McFall, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


McKelvey, William
Mr. Malcolm Bruce.



NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Heddle, John


Boswell, Tim
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hill, James


Bowis, John
Hind, Kenneth


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holt, Richard


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cash, William
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Ian


Dicks, Terry
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lightbown, David


Dover, Den
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Franks, Cecil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony


French, Douglas
Mills, Iain


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neubert, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Gregory, Conal
Norris, Steve


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Harris, David
Portillo, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Price, Sir David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raffan, Keith





Redwood, John
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trotter, Neville


Ryder, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Warren, Kenneth


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Bowen


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Summerson, Hugo
Mr. Michael Fallon and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Aitken: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 3, line 44, at end add—
'(5) Complaints from serving or former members of the Security Service may at the request of the complainant be dealt with informally by the Staff Counsellor of the Security Service.
(6)The Staff Counsellor shall be appointed by the Prime Minister.
(7) The Staff Counsellor shall be available to be consulted by any member or former member of the Security Service who has complaints or anxieties relating to the work of his or her past or present service.
(8) The Staff Counsellor shall have access to all relevant documents and to any level of management in the Security Service. He will also have access to the Secretary of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister.
(9) The Staff Counsellor shall be available to give. guidance to members or former members of the Security Service who are seeking authorisation to publish information about their past or present service.
(10) The Staff Counsellor shall make an annual report on his activities and on the working of the system to the Prime Minister.
(11) The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Staff Counsellor under subsection (10) above together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (12) below.
(12) If it appears to the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Staff Counsellor, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Service, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament.
(13) The Secretary of State may after consultation with the Staff Counsellor and with the approval of the Treasury as to numbers provide the Staff Counsellor with such staff as the Secretary of State thinks necessary for the discharge of his functions.'.
I realise that the House is fibrillating at the prospect of three hours of Scottish business as soon as possible, so I shall not detain it unduly. However, the amendment is important and has a particular significance to our proceedings. Those hon. Members who have managed to endure this marathon will have noticed that the Government have had a wild determination at all costs not to give way to any amendment because, for some mysterious reason, they oppose a Report stage. No matter how bad the drafting and no matter how deep the hole they have got themselves into, they have not dreamed of accepting an amendment.
Here at last, however, I believe that I have managed to draft an amendment from which it will be impossible even for my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the great Houdini in this debate—to escape. My amendment has only two ingredients—the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a promise given to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. With those two elements, the amendment is almost inescapable and I wait with interest to see how Houdini can escape from it, as I know that he will endeavour to do.
The amendment seeks to write into the Bill the position, role and duties of the staff counsellor of the security services. A staff counsellor was, until recently, an unknown animal in the world of security, but was created in 1987 as a direct result of the activities of Mr. Michael Bettaney, of blessed memory, whose activities have already been discussed and whose treachery and subsequent story have been relayed already to the House.
What emerged from the Security Commission's report on the Bettaney case is that throughout the Security Service many officers had been deeply anxious about the conduct of Michael Bettaney, his possible treachery and his instability. I treasure the memory of the report by the Security Commission on a Mrs. X, an employee of the Security Service, who was cloaked in suitable anonymity. She had gone to a party with Mr. Michael Bettaney and a woman friend and Mr. Michael Bettaney had, in the course of the party, drunk two bottles of neat whisky, set fire to himself and announced that he would much rather be working for the Russians. Despite that, back at the office the following morning Mrs. X felt unable to tell anybody about this dimension of Bettaney's instability, insecurity and unworthiness to be a member of the Security Service because there was no one to tell. After a great deal of internal criticism and soul-searching, the Security Service said, "We really need to have someone to whom the troops can talk in confidence about their grievances, worries and fears about their desire to see a more efficient and effective Security Service."
Another incident confirmed the need for a staff counsellor of the Security Service. A distinguished committee investigated the case of Sir Roger Hollis. Rightly or wrongly, it concluded that the "preponderance of probability"—a good bureaucratic phrase—was that Sir Roger Hollis was a Soviet agent, but its members could not then tell anybody. They eventually found someone to tell because Mr. Stephen DeMowbray had a cousin at No. 10 Downing street. He was somewhat surprised when the doorbell rang, but asked for an appointment for Mr. DeMowbray, who managed to get in to see the Cabinet Secretary by that circuitous route to tell him that the head of MI5 was, in the view of a number of his colleagues, a Soviet agent.
1.30 am
The fact that the routes of communication were so unsatisfactory led even the Government—who, as we know, believe in the total efficiency and wizardry of the solo monitoring of the Security Service by the Home Secretary—to decide that it was time to do something. The appointment of the staff counsellor was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 November 1987 in a written answer which described his functions and terms of reference. The words of the Prime Minister are

encapsulated, more or less verbatim, in the amendment, which would write into the Bill the terms and conditions of the staff counsellor as announced by the Prime Minister. Some of us do not necessarily approve of government by written answer. If the staff counsellor is to play a pivotal role, let us not rely on a written answer given in 1987. If we are to restructure the legal basis of the Security Service, let us write into the Bill the appointment of the staff counsellor, because he fulfils an important role.
I have added one further function to the functions of the staff counsellor—a development that dates from 21 December, when the Official Secrets Bill had its Second Reading. I have forgotten which statesman said that he had caught the Whigs bathing and walked away with their clothes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disraeli."] In that case, I have donned the mantle of Disraeli. I have caught my hon. Friend the Minister of State buying votes, walked away with his promise and sought to put it into the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who is unavoidably detained, travelling in the southern hemisphere, has authorised me to say that he supports my amendment. He expressed considerable concern about the impossibility even of innocuous and patriotic memoirs and comments by former members of the Security Service ever being authorised. In a very good speech on 21 December, my right hon. Friend argued that some members of the Security Service might from time to time wish to express their views on policy matters—while not revealing any operational secrets—and that there was no system of authorisation to allow for that. Even Mr. Anthony Cavendish, who dug up only innocuous old remains, received the message "Please delete eight chapters" when he sent his Christmas card in for authorisation.
Closer to home, one recalls that on the day when the BBC was to put out the first of an admirable but basically boring and anodyne series of programmes on the security services called "My Country, right or wrong" the Attorney-General rushed to the Dispatch Box, hurled out writs like confetti and banned the programme because some members of the Security Service had commented on it. When the dust settled—when the writs had stopped flowing and somebody had finally listened to the programmes and read the transcripts—not one sentence or comma was deleted. Several weeks later it transpired that the only comments made by the former members of the Security Service had been in the most responsible areas—suggesting, for example, views on whether it was desirable to have oversight which could not deserve a ban.
Clearly, there are situations in which, despite all the talk about absolute bans and life-long confidentiality, former members of the Security Service can make comments and express views that have no bearing on national security, which do not in any way jeopardise secrets, but which are just comments on policy. Therefore, it is desirable to have some means of authorisation.
In the debate on official secrets my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion pressed for a system whereby, if a former member of the Security Service were dissatisfied and found himself unreasonably blocked from saying anything and forced into the role of a Trappist monk, he would have somewhere to turn. My right hon. Friend said, "I am not prepared to vote for this Bill unless I can get an assurance on this subject." I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State flew off on an excitable unpinioned wing to buy off my right hon. Friend's vote because he did


not want a well-known patriotic Privy Councillor such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion to vote against the Government on official secrets legislation.
The Minister quickly cobbled together a formula to buy back the vote of my right hon. Friend. He did so with the following words:
My right hen. Friend then asked where a member of the service would turn if he still felt dissatisfied. He will turn to the staff counsellor. At present our distinguished staff counsellor is Sir Philip Woodfield. That is a matter of public knowledge. This applies not just to present members but to former members of the services. If a member or former member is seeking to use publication to report anxieties that he or she may have about his or her work or former work, or if he or she is concerned about the reasons for a refusal of publication, he or she can go to the staff counsellor".—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 538.]
In this vital area of free speech for former Security Service officials, the staff counsellor was suddenly shot into the role of arbiter, adviser, man of guidance and the man who would steer the former Security Service official wishing to publish his memoirs or say his piece on the radio on to the strait and narrow path of authorised disclosure. Subsection (9) of my amendment therefore simply adds to the staff counsellor's role the words:
shall be available to give guidance to members or former members of the Security Service who are seeking authorisation to publish information about their past or present service.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion has asked me to say that he strongly approves and supports that part of the amendment.
I think that I have made out my case, using the Prime Minister's words taken straight from a written answer, and the promise made by the Minister of State. The amendment is perfectly tailored to fit the Bill. It is an ideal amendment to the Bill. How will Houdini escape? Watch this space, Sir Paul.

Mr. Cryer: We should not allow this matter to pass without comment. I know that there is pressure of business, but this is an important measure and the Bill and amendments have been debated without wasting any time. During our debates important issues have been raised. I thought that the Minister proposed to remain immobile and would not answer the points that have been raised, so I should like to raise one or two more points so that he can give a reasoned reply. However, I have no doubt that the Minister will refuse to accept the amendment.
If we consider the work that spies undertake, we must recognise that they are under great pressure. They have to lie to people, often to their own families, and deceive other people in their close circles. Naturally, they will not want to do that. They cannot disclose by whom they are employed. They must say, "I am employed by Box 500", which would be a less than satisfactory explanation, or they must dream up a more conventional excuse. That naturally leaves them in a closed world in which their only understanding and relationship is with people who can share their secrets. Because of the nature of their occupation, they cannot chatter to friends and acquaintances, as most ordinary mortals can, about difficulties at work. The staff counsellor can, therefore, perform a useful function.
In addition, as the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, there is the question of writing memoirs as a means of divulging information. The staff counsellor will be able to point to a few useful alternatives. In the

past, when the Government wanted to publish information about the spies, they did not allow the spies to write directly, but told them to get in touch with Chapman Pincher of theDaily Express, who would publish it as being from non-attributable sources, which is what they did with Peter Wright. The Government became hot and bothered about Peter Wright's revelations, but we should bear in mind that one of Peter Wright's grumbles was that Chapman Pincher did not do a very good job in ghosting his memoirs and did not include all the information. Those were memoirs that were approved by officers of the Government.
When the Government said that there was a life-time obligation of secrecy, that was not quite accurate. They were prepared to allow some information to dribble out as long as it did not appear to have the absolute authenticity of a real full-time working spy but just came from a hack. The staff counsellor will be able to give advice as to who to contact at the Daily Express and the ghosting cost for providing information on "My life as a spy". He will be able to take the heat off the difficult circumstances in which people, who, after all, are ordinary human beings following a somewhat extraordinary occupation, can find themselves.
The amendment contains a bit more parliamentary accountability. It takes one's breath away that people can sit on the Treasury Bench and talk about there being a parliamentary democracy, which these spies are working to protect, but in the next breath they can take away the essence of that accountability in a parliamentary democracy. Yet subsection (11) of the amendment provides
The Prime Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report made by the Staff Counsellor",
with the qualification that, if there is anything that prejudices the network, the information or the position, it can be deleted by the Prime Minister. It will assure people in this difficult occupation that the staff counsellor is doing his job. The spies, too, will be doing theirs without encountering any difficulty. The staff counsellor will have the information about pensions at his finger tips if a new Peter Wright comes along and says, "Look, my pension will be rotten; I need another earner. Can you give me some guidance?" He will be able to produce new figures for pensions. As everybody knows, that is the basis on which Mr. Wright wrote his book, and that is something which he reiterates again and again in the book.
An annual report by the staff counsellor laid before Parliament would be a bit more pressure to provide time in this House. As the Minister said in an earlier debate, it is not just a question of curiosity. This Parliament is the most important Chamber in the country. We all face elections, we are all accountable, and it is not just a question of vicarious enjoyment in some sort of Bond escapism.
We are talking about a serious section of Government work. Therefore, we should have the opportunity to have: debates on that work. I believe that subsection (11) provides that opportunity.
I hope—I do not have faith that it will happen—that the Minister will accept the amendment and, if there are deficiencies in its drafting, will suggest that it be moved in another place.

Mr. John Patten: As they used to say in the old days when the great escapologist broke free, "With one bound he was free."
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) used the excellent words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which he reported accurately. He also reported words when I replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and I thought that they sounded rather good. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South has introduced the themes in his amendment, but he has not demonstrated the vital missing ingredient of need and, therefore, why the amendment is necessary. Hence my ability to escape, Houdini-like, from the dialectical trap of the well-honed words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself into which he attempted to encompass me.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the staff counsellor to a surprised House on 2 November 1987 she made his functions clear. I refer hon. Members to column 512 of the Official Report for that day, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South has already referred.
The system is in place and is working well. It does not need any legislation to underpin it. I understand that the staff are well aware of the staff counsellor's existence and of the arrangements for consulting him, which are simple and direct.
On 21 December, during Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill—to to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South referred—I made clear the sort of circumstances in which the staff counsellor might be approached by a member of the security and intelligence services regarding a member's wish to publish information about his experiences in the services. That system had never been spelt out so fully before and I have nothing to add to what I then said.
I see no need for my hon. Friend's proposal to extend into statute law the life of an official who is successfully carrying out his role as staff counsellor.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister said, as he might have said before the Bill was introduced, that the system is working well and that there is no need to put it on to a statutory basis. We do not think that the system is working well and certain admissions from Ministers during our deliberations tonight confirm our view. For that reason we want the system set on a statutory basis.
The reality is that what a Minister concedes under pressure from his Benches one day he can withdraw on another day. The statutory provision, along the lines outlined in the amendment, would provide a degree of permanence to an arrangement that, by its nature, is transitory. There is a need for permanency, at least until Parliament can think of a better way in which to provide for anxious members of the Security Service.
When the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) returns from the nether regions or from the Antipodes, I doubt whether he will be satisfied with what the Minister has said. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will want to consider his stance on the Official Secrets Bill carefully once he has read this debate. The Minister has advanced no argument of substance against a statutory

basis. Once again he has shown the Government's unwillingness to accept any amendment, however sound and however much support it enjoys.

Mr. Aitken: As they say in American show business, "The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings." In this case she is played by Sir Philip Woodfield, the Security Service staff counsellor. We are solemnly told that there is no point in writing his role and functions into the Bill because there is no need to. Everything is working perfectly well. I do not know how much detail we have about Sir Philip's activities, or about how many members of the service have been to see him, or about what his functions have been. We shall have to take it on trust that everything is going perfectly.
But one part of the amendment cannot possibly be said to be working well or to be unnecessary. Here I return to the promise made by my hon. Friend the Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). How can there be no need for subsection (9), which writes into statute the promise my hon. Friend gave on 21 December? It was given only three weeks ago; there has not been a surge of people going to the staff counsellor asking for their memoirs to be authorised. I do not suppose those authors have all read the small print of Hansard closely. It cannot be true that there is no need for this to be written into the Bill. First, the staff counsellor's role needs to be put on a permanent basis, rather than depending on a written answer. Secondly, if only to get my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion to vote again on the Official Secrets Bill, there is a need to write the memoir and communication assisting parts into the Bill.
We have reached the comic opera finale: not one amendment will be accepted under any circumstances by the Government. There is a funny side to that, but a sad side, too, and on that note I close.
Amendment negatived.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister intend to bring the clause into operation at the same time as the rest of the Bill, or does he intend to delay it, using his powers under clause 7?

Mr. John Patten: This subject will be discussed during consideration of the next amendment. But I can say now that we do not yet know the final shape of the Bill. This matter will require the usual consideration after we know that, which will enable us to make full use of the commencement provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 4, line 2, leave out subsection (2).
Anyone reading the past two days' debates on this legislation would realise that we have been through a farcical procedure. Most people will marvel that the Government have pushed through the measure that they claimed would give the Security Service a statutory basis with so little input and scrutiny by the House. It is also amazing that the Government think they can get away


with a measure that leaves all the power in the hands of the Home Secretary and Prime Minister. They claim a statutory basis, but the Bill leaves all decision-making to Government Ministers—nothing is set down in statute.
The final affront is the commencement order at the end of the Bill. Clause 7(2) reads:
(2) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by an order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes.
That means that the Secretary of State wants a blank cheque for deciding how much of the legislation he will bring into force. He has just told my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that he will wait until the end of the legislation process, until the Bill has completed its progress through the House of Lords, before deciding how and when the legislation will come into operation. That is totally unsatisfactory.
This is a simple measure and there is little in it that needs to be brought in over a lengthy period. It would be quite simple for the Government to follow the precedent set by other Bills and not insert a commencement clause, in which case the legislation would come into operation with the Royal Assent. The Government claim that the measure contains checks and balances. If that is so, it is reasonable to ask for the whole measure or none of it. We do not want the Secretary of State deciding over several years when certain parts of the measure can come into operation while others do not operate at all.
We have some means of scrutinising statutory instruments, but we do not have procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments that are not laid. It is a gross abuse that measures containing regulating powers often go through the House and Ministers do not use those powers for many years afterwards. Sometimes they are never used, hut there is no way in which the House can scrutinise them. I seek from the Minister an assurance that the whole measure will be brought into operation at one time. He should not say that the first part of the Bill, which gives extra powers to the Secretary of State, will be brought into operation at once while the second part, which allows for some mild scrutiny, will not be brought in until later.
I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment because it would ensure that the whole of the legislation would be operative on Royal Assent. We should also have a proper Report stage so that hon. Members may return to the many issues that have entered the debate and which have not been satisfactorily answered. We should get answers here rather than having to wait and hope that the other place carries out the scrutiny that we should be allowed to carry out.

Mr. Cryer: I asked a question on clause 5 because I wanted to hear the Minister's comment before we came to this amendment. His comment at that time was as unsatisfactory as all his other comments. The Minister must have a strong sense of irony because he said that he would wait until he knows the shape of the Bill. Every amendment has been rejected and the Whips have been operating to get the majority of Conservative Members—most of whom have not troubled to listen to the debate—to vote. The Minister must either be very stupid-and I do not think that he is—or very ironic to say that he does not know the shape of the Bill. He knows its shape perfectly well because it is in the document before the Committee. He knows 99 per cent. of the shape of the Bill.
The Government know what will happen in the Lords. The Bill is not about rural buses for which a few Lords might come out of their castles and vote against Government legislation. The Minister knows that the Bill will go easily through the Lords. Clause 7(2) does not even say that the Minister will bring in clauses by order when he chooses. It says:
different days may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes.
That means that the Minister can bring into operation any section of the legislation. He can bring into operation part of a section or part of a schedule, and that is unusual. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has said, statutory instruments will be dealt with by the negative procedure. We do not object to that. However, we object to the fact that the Minister is not able to give an assurance.
2 am
We want an assurance that, when it is brought into operation, the Bill will include the appointment of the director-general to oversee the efficiency of the service. and we want clause 4 to be included because it will enable the commissioner to keep an eye on the Minister in the exercise of his function in issuing what have been described as burglary warrants. The Minister should be reasonable and agree to introduce the safeguard clauses at the same time as the rest of the measure. It would be an outrage, with an elective dictatorship trampling on the rights of Parliament, if the Minister failed to give that assurance.
Clause 5 must also come into force at the same time., because it safeguards people who feel abused by the burglary warrants. As it establishes a tribunal to deal with complaints, it must be introduced early, and it is no excuse for the Minister to say that he does not know the final shape of the Bill. The Government must heed the words of the former Lord Chancellor and not adopt the stance of an elective dictatorship, casting aside their responsibilities to Parliament. It would be a disgrace if they did that.

Mr. John Patten: I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The provision which the amendment standing in the name of the latter would delete is the usual formula which permits flexibility in the implementation of any measure. An example of that is the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which the Home Secretary and I took through the House. That is now being implemented quickly and in various stages.
On present indications, we have no plans to bring this measure into force, should it become law, in a piecemeal fashion. It is our intention that the whole measure should come into force as soon as practicable after Royal Assent.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "as soon as practicable." Will he give an indication of the time scale? He will be aware that many pieces of legislation do not contain commencement orders and come into operation as soon as they receive Royal Assent.

Mr. Patten: The Bill as drafted is coherent and inter-related and all of a piece. It is the intention of' the Government, as soon as Royal Assent is achieved, to bring it into play as soon as possible.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill

SCHEDULE 1

INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS

Mr. Winnick: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 5, line 7, after 'his' insert
'and shall have the right to appear in person, or by his legal or union representative, before the Tribunal.'.
It is not clear whether somebody making a complaint to the tribunal must appear in person or can authorise his union or legal representative to appear on his behalf. The tribunal must first decide that the complainant has a case. The Bill makes it clear that if it is a frivolous complaint the tribunal will not consider it.
Once the tribunal has decided that the complainant has a case to adduce, the Security Service will do its utmost to produce evidence seeking to justify what it has done. If the complainant cannot appear or have a representative, he or she will be very much at a disadvantage. For instance, I cite the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) which is being brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Clearly, she will have legal representation, but if the Bill were already on the statute book and she and Patricia Hewitt had made that complaint against the security services and the Government to the tribunal, she would not have been able to appear in person or have legal representation. That would have been most unfair.
I hope that the Minister will accept my proposal. If he does not and a complainant has no right to appear before a tribunal in person, it makes a complete mockery of the tribunal procedure. It emphasises once again the view put forward over the past two days by Labour Members, and by some Conservative Members, that there is no real control over the security services and that they are and to a large extent will remain a law unto themselves.

Mr. John Patten: There may be cases in which the tribunal considers that a complainant or complainants—I shall not consider the particular cases raised by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—should be asked to attend in person or to be represented. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's amendment gives me the chance to clarify that point.
Under the Bill the tribunal is free to determine its own procedure, subject only to the restrictions concerning the disclosure of information provided to it. The Bill does not, therefore, prevent the tribunal from hearing oral evidence from the complainant, or from others appearing on his or her behalf—for example, the trade union official to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, or a solicitor—where that would help the tribunal to discharge its functions.
If the complainant were invited to attend, he or she could ask to be represented or accompanied. There is certainly no bar in the Bill to a complainant taking legal advice or being legally represented. It is similar to the procedure under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Under that Act, the applicant is required to sign the form, which is a freely available document, but that is all. It makes it clear that he or she could ask a solicitor, for example, to submit the application to the tribunal on his or her behalf. In the same way, if oral evidence were needed from the complainant by the tribunal, the tribunal would be free to hear his or her legal representative or any other representative proposed by the complainant.

Mr. Buchan: For one golden moment, I thought that we were about to receive a better assurance from the Minister, but he is determined to end our debate on the same sour note of the past two days. There is no guarantee that a legal or trade union representative will be present in such cases. Why does the Minister not simply accept the amendment and write it into the Bill? If he will not, it means that he considers that there are cases in which that right should not be given to the complainant. Will he not accept the amendment even at this late stage? If that provision is not written into the Bill, there is no assurance that the Minister believes that a complainant can of right be legally represented or represented by his trade union. Will the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen? If he cannot do that, will he accept the amendment so that he can give us that assurance?

Mr. Winnick: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I hoped that the Minister's opening remarks meant that he saw some reason or justification for my modest amendment No. 41. Surely it is a basic principle of British justice that if a person brings a complaint before a tribunal or a court, that person should be able to appear or to be represented. I have some experience of these matters. Before I returned to the House I represented people who lodged appeals on immigration cases. It was never thought that those people should not be allowed to appear before the adjudicator or tribunal or be duly represented.
If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, is he willing to say that the matter will receive favourable consideration in another place? Nothing in the Bill goes anywhere near what the Minister said.
Finally, I repeat what was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). When matters are brought before a tribunal or court, decisions are made according to the Act passed by Parliament, not what a Minister said or what is written in Hansard. Therefore, if the Minister cannot accept the amendment because the Home Secretary is not around, and he needs his right hon. Friend's authorization—I understand that and am not being sarcastic—if he will say that the points that have been raised are worthy of further consideration, he will give some partial satisfaction.

Mr. Cryer: Ministers usually set out in statutory instruments the procedures to be followed by tribunals. That is to ensure that the tribunals are fair. I am sure that the Minister wants the tribunals to be fair in their adjudication on complaints. I should have thought, therefore, that he would have given at least some indication of the procedures that they should follow.
Although the tribunals are appointed by royal warrant—whatever that is—in practice they are appointed by the Government. As the tribunal is a creature of Government, the Government would normally inform the tribunal about the procedures that it should follow. Because it is a highly secretive tribunal, I am being indulgent. I believe that its rules should be set out in a statutory instrument, as for all other tribunals that Ministers in various Departments set up to adjudicate on various matters. In this case, however, I am prepared to indulge the Minister by saying not that there must be a statutory instrument making everything open and above board but that we expect the Government to inform the House about the procedures that the tribunal will follow and to allow the


right of representation. That should be made absolutely clear. The Minister has told the House that that process may be followed but he has also said that tribunals make up their own rules, so if a tribunal is determined to ignore the right of representation because that is convenient for it, it can presumably do so. Will the Minister tell us that it will be the Goverment's recommendation to the tribunal to accept representation? Despite the undesirability of the lack of clear rules, is the Minister prepared to do that?

Mr. Winnick: I have invited the Minister simply to say whether the matter should be considered in another place. We are in Committee. Surely the Minister can answer yes or no.

Mr. John Patten: I have given a very good explanation of the Government's position and I do not intend to add to it.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

To be read the Third time this day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We come now to motion No. 2 on Scottish housing.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Not moved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are not to be moved.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have not moved the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989 because of the lateness of the hour. I wish to place clearly on record that the reason that the hour is so late is the Government's obduracy in refusing to accept a single amendment among all the constructive amendments proposed to the Security Service Bill. It is scandalous of the Government to treat the House with the contempt that they have shown it tonight in every respect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Adjournment motion has been moved, and hon. Members must be aware that they are now taking the time of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Leighton Hospital, Crewe

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Prime Minister makes great play of the fact that, in future, we should consider the National Health Service in a completely new light. We are told to look for new partnerships between the Health Service and private medicine, and that we should seek to improve the amount of work that is done in the NHS other than by those who are employed by it full time. It is important that we consider what has happened in the Crewe and Nantwich district health authority, because it gives some indication of what the future is likely to hold. I refer to the private hospital built in the grounds of Leighton district general hospital in my constituency, which will be run by Bioplan Holdings.
I was interested to read in the Health Service Journalof 17 November 1988 an account by the district health authority's current finance director as to how the partnership came about—not least because it is extremely instructive. Addressing a seminar on the need to create deals with the private sector, that finance officer commented that Crewe and Nantwich set out to devise joint ventures only because the amount of money required—£500,000—was not available to the health authority if it had wanted to go ahead alone. He added:
We didn't involve the Treasury, or the Department of Health or the region, until it was too late for them to do something. I am not saying it is what everyone should do, but there are a lot of people around who are saying that they wished they had ploughed their own furrow, too.
Why is this important? First, NHS hospital land is, without exception, Crown land. How the value of that land is assessed and what deals are entered into with the private sector will be of interest not only to the taxpayer but to the Public Accounts Committee. The value of the leases that are handed out on NHS property will affect the viability of any private unit, and it is therefore important that the taxpayer is protected in all such deals.
One delegate who was concerned tackled Mr. Thomas because Crewe had not put the deal out to tender. How, he asked, did Crewe know the value of the land on the open market? Mr. Thomas said that he was convinced that the company had made a good offer. Another asked whether Crewe had carried out any investigation into Bioplan. Mr. Thomas said that internal audit staff had been unable to find out much because the company was so new.
I can honestly say that after 22 years in the House I have developed a new aspect of my work with which I have never had to deal before. Virtually continuously, I have had someone at Companies house researching the status and background of private companies seeking to enter into deals which concern themselves with state assets. In this instance, Bioplan is no exception. I have in my hand the microfiches relating to the company's records, and I have considerable sympathy with Crewe DHA, because it is very difficult to find out any useful information from those microfiches about the company's financial standing, its overall accounts or the way in which it has been run.
Yet Peter Townsend, who is referred to as the chair of Bioplan Holdings, said when he was talking to the same seminar that having started out with its own private hospitals in 1986 Bioplan decided that its future lay in partnerships. The company concentrated on the acute sector and the care of elderly people. I can find no useful


information about Bioplan, and Crewe DHA was manifestly in the same position. It entered into the deal with, presumably, no accurate figure for the cost of the land, and therefore presumably finding it extremely difficult to produce an accurate assessment for the lease; not knowing anything about the company with which it was dealing; and going ahead without having consulted, on the evidence of the finance officer, anyone either at regional or at any other level. It is extremely risky for anyone to enter into a business partnership on that financial basis, yet the pattern could well be followed if the NHS continually seeks to put an estimate on the assets that it has by virtue of being a state authority.
I was extremely concerned about the creation of this private hospital. First, it is extremely small: it has only 20 beds, and in normal circumstances could not conceivably create a viable unit. I was also concerned because it was created at a time when nearly £2 million had been cut from the amount made available for the running of the DHA. Moreover, when the press statements were put out about the Bioplan agreement, we were told that there would be no capital or revenue outlay; Crewe health authority would lease the one-and-a-half-acre site and would generate income of approximately £80,000 a year. A number of services were also listed as being part of the deal. The agreement was that Bioplan would build a new private hospital at a cost of£1.5 million, and that it would also invest a substantial amount in upgrading and improving the X-ray department in Leighton hospital. Other facilities were also promised.
This matter was of particular interest to me, as only last December I received the final answer to a series of letters that I had written to the DHA about a number of cases in which my constituents who were non-urgent cases required straightforward X-rays relating to conditions likely to be of major importance to them, and had been told that there was a wait from 2 September 1988 until 10 March 1989. It was therefore of considerable importance to me to know that there was to be this great investment of extra money and extra teams, which was to make an enormous difference for my NHS patients, because this is what I have been told all the way along: "Of course it will not detract from the National Health Service. It will provide a much better level of care."
We in the Crewe district have considerable doubt about the level of management that exists already in the DHA. The chairman has more than once pushed through very important decisions on his casting vote. There is also a history of senior officials leaving the authority. I suppose that I should not have been altogether astonished when the gentleman of whom I am talking, Mr. David Thomas, who had negotiated all of these contracts, very soon afterwards announced that he was leaving Crewe and going elsewhere. My local paper reported on 31 October that Mr. David Thomas, who had served as director of finance for Crewe, had announced plans to quit the post early next year and take up a new role with a private health care company which is currently building a 20-bed non-NHS hospital at Crewe.
There is no other profession in the world where one may leave and set up business immediately on the same premises as those people with whom one was working. I therefore asked the Minister a question about the

conditions under which employees can leave the National Health Service, presumably taking with them a great deal of expertise, only to be told by the Minister that this was a matter for the individual DHA.
I remain very concerned. This hospital will have a direct effect on the quality of care within the NHS. It has been set up in such a way that there is no transparency in its financial arrangements, and it has now taken on its staff someone who has detailed knowledge of the running of the NHS. That is very important, because it is money from the NHS that will create the viability of this unit. The company has already been given considerable contracts for providing certain care for NHS patients, and it is the number of people who will be pushed into this unit that will, in the final analysis, make the difference to its economics.
It goes much wider than that, however. There has been an enormous cut imposed upon the ambulances in the area, and when I read the consultation document it suddenly became clear that, to find£47,000, one of the things that had certainly been suggested was that something like 50 per cent. of the travel in the Crewe area was represented by journeys to Leighton hospital. The ambulance service was saying, in effect that, if people did not fully qualify for an ambulance—I do not know how that is justified, because that must imply that people using the ambulances have no right to do so—and if there was a need to make swingeing cuts, one of the things that could be said was that 50 per cent. of ambulance journeys within Crewe town were to Leighton hospital and thus could be abandoned in the name of economy. So it becomes very clear that what happens at Leighton will affect us right across the board. Certainly, the way the establishment is run in relation to the private hospital is affecting us across the board.
I do not expect the Minister to give me detailed answers to what are real problems, but I want to make it clear that if we are to talk within the NHS about partnership, we have to face one basic question. Crown land is not assessed in the normal way in dealing with the creation of a new hospital. That is what has happened here. How those assets are assessed must materially affect the viability of the projects.
Contracts between people working within the NHS and private contractors must carry with them at least some protection for the NHS over a period of years. Most professional organizations—doctors are no exception—insist that written into the contracts of people employed should be undertakings that they will not carry with them into exactly the same area in which they have operated the expertise that they have gained without some protection for their previous employer. It is not good enough for the Department of Health to say only that that is entirely the responsibility of the district health authority.
It is also vital that we have an urgent investigation into the general management of Leighton hospital. There are considerable difficulties with the staff there. There is a great deal of unease. The regrading of the nurses is only one example of the problem of morale, which has been exacerbated, becoming barely tolerable for many staff.
In short, if private companies are to be allowed to go into the NHS, I want to know who investigates their viability, who demonstrates their expertise, who tells us where they have come from and what ability they have. I have already investigated three other companies that were applying for geriatric care within the same health


authority, only to find that two of them were directly connected and, even more interestingly, that one of the companies had put in a high tender for the service and one had put in a low one. When I made it clear that I knew the connection between the two companies, strangely enough one of the tenders was withdrawn.
I take a great deal of care about investigating the private firms that are interested in coming into the NHS, but I want a simple assurance from the Minister that there should be no deals with the NHS unless the criteria that apply would be acceptable to the Public Accounts Committee or the House of Commons as being completely open and transparent. We would not accept less in any other area, and I see no reason why we should accept less in the NHS.
The matter of Crown land must be looked at, how it is assessed, how the deals are entered into and what the implications are. Private companies must not come in, milking the NHS for all the facilities that they can lay hands on, using NHS patients to improve their facilities and promising to provide many new services with high-powered equipment, but in fact using the NHS for their own purposes without demonstrating any comparable improvement in facilities for my constituents. It is not good enough to talk about the gain to my district health authority without being able to provide all the relevant facts on the other side of the equation.
Above all, I ask that the management and the immediate past management should be investigated urgently so that never again will people who negotiate financial deals suddenly reappear on the other side for the private company concerned, working within the Crewe district health authority. That is offensive, and I have considerable doubts about the professionalism or the responsibility of companies that allow that to happen.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and presenting her arguments so clearly. I shall spend a short time on the general subject of private hospitals in the NHS and then deal with some of the points that the hon. Lady has raised. She has kindly said that she does not expect me to answer all the points that she has raised tonight. I shall try to answer as many as possible, but if I cannot answer them all in the time available I shall read the Official Report carefully with my officials and write to her.
The Government very much welcome the contribution of the private sector to the totality of provision for health care. Such a contribution should be regarded as adding to the total resources devoted to health care and offering flexibility to health authorities in the delivery of services. Government policy, therefore, is to encourage partnership between the National Health Service and the private health sector when this is a cost-effective way of providing or extending services. Many constructive arrangements already operate to the benefit of NHS patients, but there is scope for much more. Innovative approaches from private organisations are welcome, particularly where they accord with overall policy objectives. If a profit-making organisations can give the NHS better value for money there is no reason to put artificial barriers in the way. Equally if the NHS generates income by selling services to

the private sector it should be given every encouragement, always provided, of course, that there is no detriment to the NHS.
I must take issue with the hon. Lady. She, perhaps, did not mean to imply that all partnership arrangements between the private sector and the NHS could be typified as milking the NHS or using it for private profit. I assume that she was making her criticisms specifically in relation to the transaction at Crewe.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister think that people enter into agreements with the NHS to make money for themselves or to provide a service on the generous basis of wishing to serve humanity?

Mr. Freeman: Private companies enter into partnerships with the NHS not only to make money—which is the nature of private companies—but to do so in co-operation with the NHS. That broadens the choice available to patients and enhances total patient care. In my judgment, the two are not incompatible.
Against this background, individual health authorities must decide for themselves whether to enter into contractual arrangements with private health care organisations and establishments. To answer the first of the hon. Lady's points, it is the responsibility of the local health authority—in this case the district health authority to satisfy itself about the credibility, reputation and standing of any organisation with which it wishes to do business. That is where the responsibility should be exercised. It is not my responsibility to pass judgment on each transaction. In coming to such a decision—that is the partnership between the private company and the NHS—health authorities will need to take a great many factors into account in determining the feasibility of such arrangements in the light of local needs and priorities. Cost will, of course, be an important consideration but by no means the only one. Ultimately, it is all done for the benefit of patients.
I shall now turn to the particular circumstances of Crewe and the questions that the hon. Lady put to me. I shall deal first with the financial arrangements. In June 1988, Crewe DHA and Bioplan Holdings plc signed an agreement that would enable Bioplan to build a new private hospital in the grounds of the existing Leighton hospital at Crewe. The development—known as the South Cheshire private hospital—is now under construction on a site leased to Bioplan by Crewe health authority on terms agreed by the district valuer of the Inland Revenue. The terms of the lease were on the basis of advice that was provided by the district valuer.
I understand that the new private hospital with 20 beds should be ready for patient use in April 1989. The development does not involve any capital or revenue outlay by Crewe health authority—on the contrary, the agreement is expected to generate additional financial resources. I understand that the press release—of which the hon. Lady probably has a copy—that was issued at the time of the announcement of the transaction referred to amounts of up to£140,000 per annum. Those are additional financial resources that are available to Crewe health authority. That additional funding will be reinvested in Leighton hospital to improve services for NHS patients. Crewe health authority anticipates that the NHS and the private sector will flourish side by side to the


mutual benefit of all concerned and, in particular, the patients. The net result of the transaction is to provide incremental resources to the local district health authority.
I want to deal briefly with the comments that the hon. Lady made about Mr. David Thomas. The hon. Lady has particularly referred to the part played in negotiating the agreement with Bioplan by Mr. David Thomas, who resigned as director of finance with Crewe health authority with effect from 16 December 1988 following his appointment as Bioplan's operational manager for the new private hospital in Crewe. In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, I shall briefly explain the position as I understand it. Bioplan Holdings initiated discussions in August 1987 with Crewe health authority through consultant staff, then in turn with the chairman, Mr. John Taylor. As I have said already, dealings between the company and the authority were carried out on a proper, formal basis.
Mr. David Thomas left the employment of the authority on 16 December 1988. As I understand it, Mr. Thomas played no part in the initial approaches by Bioplan. As the exercise progressed, he took no independent decisions whatever in relation to Bioplan. All decisions were taken by Crewe health authority members at formal meetings of the authority. All valuations were conducted through the district valuer, with revenue detail being based on Crewe's actual accounts. The legal documentation was conducted through the Mersey regional legal adviser. The general approach was discussed with the officers of the regional health authority. The siting of the new private hospital was dealt with by Crewe health authority's director of estates. I give this factual information in the hope that it will alleviate some of the hon. Lady's concerns by showing that a significant number of people were involved in the exercise and that the proper procedures were followed at all stages.
The hon. Lady asked whether it is proper for someone leaving the district health authority immediately to go to work for a private company that has financial relations or dealings with that authority. The hon. Lady knows that the current position is that it is for the employing health authorities, which are statutorily independent bodies, to decide whether to introduce into individual contracts of employment any restrictive clauses of the type that I have outlined. That policy is consistent with the views of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life, which concluded in 1976 that it should be left to local authorities and other public bodies to appraise their own needs in this respect.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I remind the Minister of the quotation from Mr. Thomas:
We didn't involve the Treasury, or the Department of Health or the region until it was too late for them to do something.
I ask the Minister to look again at what I have said. I understand what his brief says, but I am asking him to look at the facts and then to tell me if he is still satisfied.

Mr. Freeman: I fully understand what the hon. Lady says, and, as I said at the outset, I shall do just that.
Finally, let me deal with the question of waiting lists and the use of Bioplan by Crewe health authority to perform surgery on about 300 patients. The hon. Lady did not refer in detail to this aspect but perhaps I may put the arrangements on the record. It is necessary briefly to rehearse the background to the matter. Crewe health authority has been among those with the most serious waiting times for surgery. To improve that situation it has set itself specific targets in agreement with the Mersey regional health authority—first, that all patients waiting for surgery for two years or more should receive their operations by 31 March 1989 and then successively to reduce waiting time to a maximum of one year by 31 March 1990. This might be termed a war on waiting times. To achieve the first objective, Crewe health authority has adopted a number of measures. These include extra sessions at Leighton hospital, referral to other NHS hospitals in Mersey region and the use of a Ministry of Defence hospital in Swindon.
Even after all those actions, some 300 patients across four specialties will remain to be treated by 31 March. These will be dealt with under a contract with Bioplan Holdings. The work will start on 6 February and patients will be treated in ward and operating theatre accommodation at Leighton hospital. This accommodation has been closed for routine work for four years as the hon. Lady probably knows. Bioplan will provide nursing, theatre and medical staff who have been recruited in advance of the opening of the new South Cheshire private hospital in April. The arrangement that has been negotiated allows Bioplan to cover expenses only and provides for no profit. In other words, during the build-up of staff pending their full employment when the new private hospital is opened, they will be attacking the waiting lists at Leighton hospital, which will benefit all the patients in the district health authority area. The average cost per case in the Bioplan scheme is way below that available locally in the private sector. Another private sector hospital was approached. The total cost would be considerably higher if Crewe health authority itself attempted to deal with the 300 cases, mainly because agency rates used for the staff groups required on a short-term basis are considerably higher than those quoted by Bioplan.
To sum up, the Government believe that private hospitals can work in partnership with NHS hospitals for the greater good of the community and without diminishing NHS care. I hope that I have dealt with the hon. Lady's concerns about arrangements. As I said at the outset, she has raised a number of points and I shall read the record and reply to her. I hope that she and I are at least agreed about one thing: that what counts above all is care of patients, whether they are treated in the private or NHS hospital in Leighton in Crewe district health authority. I pay tribute to the work of all those who work in the Leighton hospital.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock.